Process Lasso, Cacheman 7....needed or not?

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by Birdman, Dec 24, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Birdman

    Birdman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Posts:
    571
    I just purchased a new PC w/ Windows 7 (x64), 4.00 GB of RAM + AMD Athlon II X4 600e processor 2.20 Ghz.

    On my old system, I was using "process optimization" programs called Process Lasso and Cacheman 7 to help with high mem usage/faster system response.

    Will these 2 programs still be useful with my new system or will they no longer serve a purpose.

    More info:

    Process Lasso
    http://www.bitsum.com/prolasso.php

    Cacheman 7
    http://www.outertech.com/index.php?_charisma_page=product&id=2
     
  2. acuariano

    acuariano Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Posts:
    786
    but those 2 programas are similar right..?
    also with that setup +4 gigs of ram...think there will be no problem.
     
  3. ViVek

    ViVek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Posts:
    551
    Location:
    Moon
    cacheman "optimize"yours memory
    Proces lasso "optimize" cpu usage
     
  4. mike21

    mike21 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Posts:
    416
    I think cacheman is completely useless for you.
     
  5. Huupi

    Huupi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Posts:
    2,024
    IMO these app. are not the way they supposed to be.
    Windows process/ memory management is already that good.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2009
  6. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    I really wonder, if some one knows better than the OS maker( MS) how to manage memory and CPU usage by the OS!!!
     
  7. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,787
    Yeah, I would agree with the others, they are completely unnecessary....
     
  8. majoMo

    majoMo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Posts:
    938
    A completely unnecessary answer.

    'Others' say Windows is already good is like to say: don't use CCleaner; in fact Windows does a good work with their Disk CleanUp. And so on. So app. like CCleaner, InfraRecord, FastStone Image Viewer "are completely unnecessary....".

    If 'others' say to not use MS Word because Windows'WordPad is enough to them, that doesn't mean MS Word is completely unnecessary.

    The better is the topic'poster to try the apps.; if them have added value to him (with a customized configuration), why not to use that programs? Because someone else say "they are completely unnecessary"?

    In fact all applications are unnecessaries if the user doesn't use them - or, a priori, doesn't like the app. to do an effort to understand their advantages...

    FYI, TuneUp Utilities 2010 (newest version) introduced a similar feature that Process Lasso has: TuneUp Live Optimization. Perhaps TuneUp Utilities likes to do completely unnecessaries things also...

    P.S.: I don't use TuneUp Utilities - but I don't need to say that TuneUp Utilities is an completely unnecessary application...
     
  9. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Your logic is totally wrong. You are comparing non-OS manipulationg applications to OS-manipulating applications.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2009
  10. majoMo

    majoMo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Posts:
    938
    Your logic is tottaly fallacious. There aren't a comparing non-OS versus OS-manipulating applications issue here definitively.

    The poster question is "will these 2 programs still be useful with my new system". It is not non-OS versus OS-manipulating applications. For both there are useful programs. The confusion is pointless - if we want a useful without a prejudice answer.
     
  11. daray

    daray Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Posts:
    15
    I've found that process lasso (pro) to be a good app (probably the best out of all the cpu-load balancing apps out there). I can't say whether the benefits would justify paying a license on higher end / windows 7 machines, but I still run it just because I have it (negligible CPU and about 1mb memory for the core app; and an additional 528k if you run the core GUI too).

    I'm not really a fan of pretty much all one-click and background optimization programs (like Tune-up or Cacheman) though, and tend to avoid them. As far as optimization apps, there are far better individual choices around (which target only individual areas and do it better), rather than all these general solutions ... most of which tend to just be a waste, and can cause more harm than good - especially if they play with the registry.

    CPU - Process Lasso - as mentioned above.

    Memory + cache - Cleanmem (http://www.pcwintech.com/node/145) - Some say memory optimizers are a waste of time, but cleanmem has worked fine for me on my lower end systems - it is free and sets an entry in task scheduler that runs invisibly every 30 mins (so it isn't continually running / consuming resources). I've used it a while and it does work to free up memory from processes that don't release unneeded memory - when i was initially testing it a while back, it knocked firefox.exe from some 600mb to less than 200mb (i browse with many tabs open). Anywho, full explanation is on the developer's page.

    Harddisk - MyDefrag (http://mydefrag.com/) - Imo the best hard disk defragger around (and free). Allows full control of the defragging process with custom scripts, though for me the ones provided with the app work perfectly. With SSDs catching on fast though, defraggers have no real value for those that do have them.

    Registry - I completely avoid anything that claims to repair or clean up the registry. That's just asking for trouble and any perceived potential gains are not noticeable in the slightest. At most I may rarely run NTREGOPT to defrag the registry.

    Disk Cleaner - My favorite is RTT's R-Wipe&Clean (http://www.r-wipe.com/), but it isn't free. Securely deletes a load of crap off the computer, particularly privacy related stuff, as well as temp files and the usual. CCleaner is a free (but more limited) alternative.

    OS Optimization - Plenty of stuff out there like Yamicsoft's Windows 7 Manager, but I prefer to go into the depths of the OS options myself and do it all manually - including disabling any unnecessary startup entries and services.


    Not sure what else Cacheman claims to be able to do, but the above probably covers most areas that these one-click solutions attempt to cover, with better "targetted" solutions.
     
  12. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,787
    Well, we certainly are wordy today, aren't we? I'll stick with my original answer and repeat: They're not needed. And I'm sure you'll reply again with several paragraphs of useless arguments about nothing... ;)
     
  13. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest

    Especially with x64 Win 7 and minimum 4GB RAM, there is no need for placebo-inducing memory "optimising" add-ons.
     
  14. 1boss1

    1boss1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Posts:
    401
    Location:
    Australia
    I used CachemanXP for probably 5 years on XP, it did provide excellent gains in system performance and done a good job. It was even on my essentials list of software when i ever i reformat.

    However i found Cacheman7 to not do much in the way of performance beyond what Win7 does natively, in fact under different system loads and tasks i can't say it helped at all so I've said goodbye to Cacheman.

    Seemed pointless having it running in task manager just for old times sake.
     
  15. Birdman

    Birdman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Posts:
    571
    Thanks for all the input and great info guys. I installed Process Lasso and decided to pass on Cacheman 7. So far, so good.

    Now I'm undecided about a defrag program. Is it best to use Windows 7 built-in defrag or a 3rd party program like PerfectDisk?
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2009
  16. mike21

    mike21 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Posts:
    416
    I will stand by my reply too. Cacheman COULD BE useful if you have 512 mb ram. It is completely useless with 4 gb of ram.
     
  17. daray

    daray Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Posts:
    15
    People have their own favorites, but I swear by MyDefrag (http://mydefrag.com/) - as I mentioned above. It is the new version of what used to be JkDefrag. It also has advanced options (via their scripting engine), as well as several good default scripts that covers average user needs.
     
  18. YeOldeStonecat

    YeOldeStonecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Posts:
    2,345
    Location:
    Along the Shorelines somewhere in New England
    Agreed.

    Even back in Win9X...I really didn't see any performance gain with cacheman.

    With the introduction of NT, esp with 2K and XP and so on, CPU tweaking and RAM tweaking and even, IMO, disk defragging....I've not seen any benefit. With XP and esp with Vista and Win7...I don't even defrag anymore, I pretty much stopped doing that since NTFS and large hard drives. I don't see a whit of difference.
     
  19. Huupi

    Huupi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Posts:
    2,024
    I have used process lasso and i saw no gain in performance so dropped it.
    Cpu tweaking can be a different story but then in a way some people overclock them though.
     
  20. captainron

    captainron Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Posts:
    77
    I did notice a little more responsiveness in xp after using cachman to alter settings called 'hungapptimeout' 'waittokillapptimeout' 'menushowdelay' 'autoendtask' and 'disable thumbnail cache'. Its a minor improvement that back in 2002 was worth the 5 minutes for a tiny bit of extra responsiveness IMO.

    Only similar setting I've found in Win7 is 'menushowdelay' in registry, default ms 400ms, I lowered it to 200ms, in theory will make menus a bit more responsive, practically I'm not sure if its noticeable or not.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.