Subscribe to our Best Free Memory Optimizer
|
In a Hurry?
|
 Go straight to the Quick Selection Guide |
|
Introduction
|
|
Windows (XP and Vista) has excellent memory management and for the most part you don't need a third party memory management product. I've tried a few free memory managers but none has impressed me enough to allow recommendation. Until now that is. Most people believe that Memory Optimizers are nothing but "Snake Oil". And, that is mostly true. Most memory optimizers simply fill up memory in windows, and force everything to the page file. However, there a couple that seem to actually work. |
|
Discussion
|
|
CleanMem I've got to talk about this little program that another category editor told me about. I've been running it now for several months and I've got to say that I almost forgot about it. You never notice it other than you eventually notice that your system is running smoother and faster. After installation, you don't even realize that it is working. The program will install and set it to run every 30 min via the windows task scheduler. You can change this to any amount of time you like by simply going to the task scheduler in windows and changing any of the options you like. This doesn't work like other memory cleaners that do nothing but force windows to free up memory by using up all the avail. memory. This old trick then causes your system to lag big time! CleanMem has just been upgraded to version 1.4.2. Cleanmem now also clears the file cache of the system, the same way CacheSet does ( http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897561.aspx ). So now when Cleanmem runs, both the processes and the file cache are cleaned; recovering even more memory and performance. Again now, you wont see tons of performance on a normally running system, but it does keep things in shape. Just like Cleanmem always has. FreeRAM XP is a memory manager that not only works but also doesn't seem to cause problems; a rare combination. It ticks away in the background, consumes few resources, and does genuinely free up a bit of memory when you ask it to. It can also be configured to automatically free up memory. Does freeing up memory improve performance? On both my test system and personal laptop it certainly did release some more memory, but it didn't make much difference to performance. Still, all my systems are XP and have 1GB plus. Maybe on older PCs with less memory, or when using applications like PhotoShop that eat up a lot of memory it may make a difference, I can't say. What I can say is that FreeRAM XP caused no problems other than a 10-30 second freeze of my PC when FreeRAM is in the actual process of releasing memory.
|
|
Related Products and Links
|
|
MZ Ram Booster (http://mztweak.bravehost.com/) Please be advised that MZ Ram Booster requires .Net Framework 2.0 or higher. RAMBooster 2 (http://www.sci.fi/~borg/rambooster/). There are actually 2 videos on CNET TV (http://www.cnettv.com/) featuring RAMBooster 2 that speak highly of the program. If you are interested, just follow the link and do a search for RAMBooster. CachemanXP (http://www.outertech.com/index.php?_charisma_page=downloads) While not solely a Memory Optimizer, I also need to mention it. CachemanXP is somewhat unique. CachemanXP is a Windows tuneup utility designed to improve the speed and stability of your computer by optimizing several caches, recovering RAM, and fine tuning a number of system settings. Oneclick-Optimization makes it suitable for novice and intermediate users yet it is also powerful and versatile enough for computer experts. Backups of settings ensure that all user modifications can be reversed with a single click. CachemanXP requires Windows 2000/2003 or XP/XP64 to run, uses minimal resources and virtually no CPU time. It does offer a Memory Optimizer as a part of its package. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
1.4.2 
Unrestricted Freeware 
Windows 2000, XP, 2003, Vista, & 2008 (32bit & 64bit)
|
Have Your Say
|
|
You are invited to share and discuss your views in our freeware forum. To post in the forum you need to register first but that's quick and immediate. Alternatively, anyone can leave a comment at the bottom of this page. |
|
Editor
|
|
This software category is maintained by volunteer editor Kendall Alexander. |
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Please rate this article
There is a new contender for this category. It is called RAMRush. It can be found at http://www.fcleaner.com/ramrush.htm. It is made by the makers of FCleaner. If you are not familiar with FCleaner, you probably soon will be. It is in direct competition with CCleaner. And, from what I hear, it's pretty good.
Anyway, I just learned about RAMRush and haven't had time to test it yet. However, so far, I've been impressed with this company. So, it is one that you might want to check out in the mean time.
One other thing, this new software supports the following OS's:
Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows 2003, Windows Vista, Windows 2008 and Windows 7
It is not clear if it supports 64 bit.
I can confirm that RamRush is a clone of free ram pro. It works pretty well as far as memory optimizers are concerned.
ClearMem 1.4.2 is apparently out and what I downloaded last night. I haven't installed the tool yet, but it's what both pcwintech.com and majorgeeks.com both had last night for downloading, and still have now.
Anon. from Qc Canada
Sorry about this but Are we need on Vista or Windows 7 to use the programs like this one?
CleanMem works fine on my Windows 7 Pro 64-bit.
I'm not sure that I understand your question. However, I can say that I have not tested any of these products on Windows 7 (and probably won't for quite a while as I have no immediate plans to upgrade to Windows 7). The ones that are Vista compatible, state so. I would suggest checking with their main sites to see if they have a Windows 7 compatible version available.
Oops. Sorry. I saw people posted about versions 1.4.0 and 1.4.1, but hadn't noticed that the posts in the TSA page are listed most-recent first and had been reading towards the end of this post.
I just double-checked and saw that it is 1.4.2 that's stated by kendall to begin with.
"... and had been reading towards the end of this post."
Again, sorry. Not "reading towards the end of this post", but "reading towards the end of this" (TSA) web page.
Don't take my words too literally when I post here. I do getting wording off "at times".
Anon. from Qc Canada
Re. CachemanXP,
You say, the OuterTech website indicates that the tool can be freely used, while preferably being intended as shareware.
According to the FAQ page, which is linked in the Support page linked at the top of every or else more pages at the website, the shareware version cost apparently is only $10 and I guess many users can afford this. Paying the $10 provides the shareware users with the ability to modify settings.
Actually, maybe that's slightly misstated. The following is what I'm referring to in the FAQ page, the part for CachemanXP.
Quote:
What is the difference between the unregistered and registered version of CachemanXP?
If you register, you get among customer support two additional features - Auto-Optimize and Manual Cache control. The non registered version will NOT expire.
End quote
How useful and/or impractical can the tool be for people using the tool in only the freeware version, so without the ability to auto-optimize and manually control cache (settings, I guess)?
Comparison to or with CleanMem:
And how would or does that compare with CleanMem, which the above TSA review and PCWinTech.com say that the tool "clears the file cache of the system"? F.e., does CacheMemXP clear more caches or file caches?
PageDefrag:
Also, do any of these file caches have anything to do with the Windows page file, which PageDefrag from Sysinternals defrags; or are the file caches independent, wholly separate? If the system page file is cleared by either of the above tools, then is it still of value to run PageDefrag at every boot and reboot of the system? If the answer is yes, that PageDefrag should still be run (I'm using Win 2000, as unfortunate as this may be or is), then will running either of the above tools make PageDefrag run faster when it does detect that the system page file needs defragmentation?
Anon. from Quebec, Canada
"You say, the OuterTech website indicates that the tool can be freely used, while preferably being intended as shareware."
Excuse me, but where did I say that?
"How useful and/or impractical can the tool be for people using the tool in only the freeware version, so without the ability to auto-optimize and manually control cache (settings, I guess)?"
From the same FAQ you quoted is the following information:
[QUOTE]
Does CachemanXP have to be running all the time to work?
CachemanXP is separated into two major components. The system service (CachemanXP.exe) and the settings application (CachemanXPSettings.exe).
The system service uses minimal resources (less than 1MB) and virtually no CPU time, it is represented by the CachemanXP Tray Icon.
The main purposes of the service are to Control the File Cache, recover RAM and display system information. Since it is a system service it works also if no user is logged in.
If you double click the Tray Icon the service will launch the CachemanXP settings window.
If you need Cache control, RAM recovery or the Tray Icon information display you must let the service load on Windows startup (default). The settings Window must not run, unless you need something to configure or see detailed system stats.[UNQUOTE]
I am certainly not an expert on CachemanXP. I've used it and found it beneficial. It technically probably doesn't belong in this category. (I'm not quite sure where it actually belongs.....) I cannot answer your questions in regards to comparing it to CleanMem or PageDefrag. I would suggest that you direct your questions directly to the author of CachemanXP or possibly the authors of CleanMem or PageDefrag.
Quote:
"You say, the OuterTech website indicates that the tool can be freely used, while preferably being intended as shareware."
Excuse me, but where did I say that?
End quote
Sorry, it was my sleepy mistake to begin by saying, "You say, ...". It's the Outertech website that says, i.e., implies, the above.
Quote:
I am certainly not an expert on CachemanXP. I've used it and found it beneficial. It technically probably doesn't belong in this category. (I'm not quite sure where it actually belongs.....) I cannot answer your questions in regards to comparing it to ClearMem or PageDefrag. I would suggest that you direct your questions directly to the author of CachemanXP or possibly the authors of ClearMem or PageDefrag.
End quote
I thought this was a fitting website to ask, since you listed CachemanXP, and I'll put off asking Outertech for now, because of being tied up with other things and being able to use, at least try out anyway, ClearMem.
Quote:
"How useful and/or impractical can the tool be for people using the tool in only the freeware version, so without the ability to auto-optimize and manually control cache (settings, I guess)?"
From the same FAQ you quoted is the following information:
...
End quote
What you quoted from Outertech for this above explanation is basically what I was referring to. It's the capabilities that Outertech provides with CachemanXP, but Outertech also says that people freely using the tool don't have all of the features, as quoted in my first post in this TSA page. We wouldn't get, "Auto-Optimize and Manual Cache control".
Again, I'll just stick with ClearMem as the one to start with. Both were downloaded last night, but since I'm finding little for reviews of CachemanXP and Majorgeeks has ClearMem 1.4.2 rated at 4.92 out of 5 stars with 67 votes, and CacheManXP 2.0 rated at 4.61 out of 5 with 96 votes, ClearMem seems to be the one for me to start with.
http://majorgeeks.com/CleanMem_d5993.html
http://majorgeeks.com/Cacheman_XP_d4102.html
Snapfiles.com has nothing for either of these two tools and I'm not sure which other websites to check for reviews and must be running off very shortly. Perhaps CNET has reviews for these and I'll check tonight.
Thanks for the reply,
Anon. from Quebec, Canada
I referred to CachemanXP as a "related product or link" and did not do a full review of the product for this review. This is primarily because it is related to this category but technically is not solely a memory optimizer. I still think it is a good product.
However, you asked some very specific and technical questions about Cacheman, CleanMem, and PageDefrag. While I have a good understanding of memory optimizers, I did not review PageDefrag at all (and have never used it) and I have not researched Cacheman in detail. The truth is that I don't know the answer to your questions. That is why I suggested that you direct your questions to the "experts" or authors of the products in question.
I do know that CleanMem has a very clear and lengthy description on it's website about how and why it works. (I've linked that website in another post here a while ago.) He is very clear about what it does and what it can't do. If you haven't checked it out, I encourage you to do so. CleanMem also has a forum where "experts" can answer your questions.
I apologize that I cannot answer your questions more succinctly.
That's [excellently] stated, Kendall.
I did read some at the two websites and found little at CacheMan, but maybe there's more available in some official documentation file for the tool. There doesn't seem to be. I just checked again and only find the FAQ, which doesn't say much. There isn't a link for a documentation file; not that I could see anyway. That the tool is "designed to speed up your computer by optimizing several caches, managing RAM and fine tuning a number of system settings" sounds good, but the FAQ says little more, so .... Well, I'm not a Windows guru, far from it, so it seems I'd need to know more about Windows caches, and what system settings CacheMan fine tunes. Those evidently would be settings related to caches and/or RAM, but the website's not specific about this. It can still be a good utility though.
ClearMem's developer (and maintainer) seems to provide a very good explanation in the website. I didn't read everything stated there, but did read some of what the developer posted due to apparently ignorant criticisms against ClearMem, and what the developer wrote is rather well stated (imo). Whether or not what he or she says is accurate is something I'm not technically qualified to comment on; but he or she definitely is convincing to me, definitely seeming to know what he or she is talking about.
Re. PageDefrag:
It's an important or very useful, maybe even crucial, defrag utility from Sysinternals and (I think) it was developed by Mark Russinovich; or him and another person, or more than one other. The web page a little further below is one in which he explains what this defragger does and I believe to recall that I learned of the importance of this tool at TSA a few or several years ago. If the latter's right, then Ian "Gizmo" Richards can surely tell you about this utility from his own testing of it.
And it's apparently important for users of Win 2k, NT and XP. While the tool seems to only be useful for defragging the Windows Registry hives in Win XP, the defragging is for the system page file [and] registry hives of Win 2k and NT. As I understand it, this utility is set to run at boot time and provides a clean start when defragging of these files needs to be done. Once it runs, then Windows is brought up and the tool doesn't run again until the next boot or reboot of the system.
"PageDefrag v2.32", by Mark Russinovich, Nov. 1, 2006
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspx
The rest of that article explains how to install and use this defragger.
Check with Ian Richards. I'm sure to have learned of PageDefrag here some years ago, but even if I didn't learn of it here, then he surely knows about this topic.
I just did a Google to try to find web pages at TSA that refer to PageDefrag and find or found little. Some references are in pages in which "PageDefrag" only appears in reader posts, without providing specific information about the tool, or specifying very limited information, but two TSA pages are for articles of which the bodies of the articles refer to this tool and the latter two pages are the following ones.
"Pagefile defragging", by kleinkinstein, Dec 26, 2008
http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/pagefile-defragging.htm
A reader replied to that article (or question) by stating:
Further below, when I get I WindowsSecrets.com information, there's a bit quoted regarding "fine-tuning" Windows and it may be an article that's seriously pertinent to the above-quoted reader reply.
"Need help with a selection of software", by Amysue, Oct 18, 2008
http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/need-help-selection-software.htm
A reader replied to that article, saying:
OKAY, so how does a user of Win 2k, NT or XP set the pagefile size, and to what size should it be set?
And re. NTREGOPT of ERUNT, you'll find some related information about this and PageDefrag quoted further below, nearing the end of this post; along with the related web page link.
I now did a Google to search to see if WindowsSecrets.com, of which Ian "Gizmo" Richards (host of TSA, an fyi for readers who are new to this website) is an editor or co-editor, to see if Google could find references to PageDefrag at this WS website and two links turned up.
"Will moving the pagefile improve performance?", by Fred Langa, June 11, 2009
http://windowssecrets.com/2009/06/11/05-Will-moving-the-pagefile-improve...
That text does not mention PageDefrag and to read the whole article requires being a registered, paying subscriber; but the short text provided with the link in the Google search results for this above article says the following.
Well, Fred Langa began the article by saying to beware of "Windows-tuning tips" found on the Web and using PageDefrag is not a "Windows-tuning tip"; imo, anyway. So maybe his article recommends using this utility, I conjecture. After all, using PageDefrag as Mark Russinovich, a Sysinternals and, therefore, a MS Windows expert explains is not really a "tuning tip", but setting the page file's size to a fixed size is a "tuning tip"; I think, anyway.
"When your Recovery Console goes bad", by Fred Langa, Nov 30, 2006
http://windowssecrets.com/2006/11/30/01-When-your-Recovery-Console-goes-...
That newsletter has plenty of hyperlinked topics, and there are several hyperlinks in the above-quoted text or topic, alone. F.e., both of his articles, "Sep. 21" and "Nov. 2", are hyperlinked. (FYI)
EXTRA, EXTRA, get your newsletter (a few years later than printed, but heh, who's counting?):
While not pertinent to the purpose or topics of this post, I'll quote a little from his Nov. 2 newsletter; in case this might be a topic of interest to some readers of this post.
His Nov. 2 article, or rather newsletter page (with an index at the top), is the following one.
http://www.langa.com/newsletters/2006/2006-11-02.htm#2
That whole part of the langa.com newsletter doesn't mention PageDefrag, but maybe some readers of this post will be interested in what this above piece fully says. And I hadn't heard or read of the MFT before; having heard and read of the FAT, but not MFT, before; or if I did, then it was back in the 1990's and since forgotten.
Back to PAGEDEFRAG:
It got a 4.72 of 5 stars rating at MG in 2005 (50 votes), and 4 of 5 star rating by Snapfiles, while Snapfile readers gave the tool an average of 5 of 5 stars (5 votes) rating, also in 2005. 50 users gave this a 4.3 of 5 star rating at Softpedia, while the review or votes at CNET gave a slightly (?) lower rating for ver. 2.3.2, a rating of nearly 3.5 of 5 possible stars.
http://majorgeeks.com/Pagedefrag_d603.html
http://www.snapfiles.com/reviews/PageDefrag/pagedefrag.html
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/System-Tweak/Pagedefrag.shtml
http://download.cnet.com/PageDefrag/3000-2086_4-10547422.html
Note that while the CNET rating is lower than at the other three websites, the CNET rating seems to be one about popularity; because the CNET editor didn't give a rating, the aforementioned one being the average user rating, and the users seeming to be voting in terms of popularity. The reason for saying this is not that I read any reader reviews or comments at CNET, but because immediately following the brief description of PageDefrag in the CNET page we find links to "More popular Diagnostic Software downloads". And popularity is not how I guage software(s) to begin with, for there's a more critical rating that first needs to be met.
A lot of ..., say, [awful] popular things occur; f.e., politicians, "artists", ..., who are definitely not as qualitatively good as the really good politicians, articists, ... are. I don't care about popularity until I first learn that what is truly essential is met, first. Quality, meeting needs, ... is what's essential, first; and then I don't care if other people like the things I do, or not. Well, unless they like things that screw up good things, in which case I would and do care.
Plastic toys are popular with a lot of people, but they're JUNK. People popularly like Kellogs, but I won't spend a dime on the ... crap.
Okay, that's an extreme analogy, for there are good freeware that are popular and just don't do everything a serious Windows user needs when it comes to a topic like, f.e., defragmentation. And I've learned that ... well, like about PageDefrag, f.e. So what's crucial in this is determining whether the utility is really good and useful, before considering how popular the tool is. If the latter is met and the latter isn't, then I'm still interested; popularity of good tools or applications only being some "icing on the cake", but you have to have the to put the icing on, first; say (sort of?).
If you do a search of the MS website on PageDefrag, or for it, then plenty of links are returned.
In the following user forum page, there is a description of NTREGOPT in ERDNT or else ERUNT (maybe ERDNT is a typographical error?), and the following is said in reference to PageDefrag.
http://www.5starsupport.com/ipboard/index.php?showtopic=13366
You'll find plenty of related pages linked in searching TechGuy.org. I don't know if it's a reliable website for technical support, but think to have seen it recommended at TSA ... in the past (maybe?).
ZDNet.com has one page for PageDegrag, but only for download, no review; however, the page is dated Jan. 20, 2009, so maybe this an indication that it is a recommended tool by ZDNet.
http://search.zdnet.com/index.php?q=pagedefrag&t=0
And NoNags.com, which I first learned about as a recommendation at TSA for download website some years ago rates PageDefrag 6 ducks out of 6 possible.
http://www.nonags.com/freeware-pagedefrag_580.html
And there's evidently LITTLE to [nothing] available for actual reviews of PageDefrag, but I got the link some years ago and from what I (vaguely) recall to have been a recommendation. I thought that it was at TSA, but maybe not.
Anyway, Ian "Gizmo" Richards and WindowsSecrets.com people should surely know about this defrag utility. If PageDefrag isn't really indispensable without affecting system performance, then someone should be making this known. I don't have any real means of being able to make this sort of evaluation. If MajorGeeks and Snapfiles both rate the tool as good or very good, and both of these websites are recommended, today, by TSA as download websites, then I guess PageDefrag is good to use. Nevertheless, it would not hurt to check this out with Ian Richards and possibly other people who contribute to TSA and WindowsSecrets.com.
They're definitely and far more qualified than I could be about this topic and using MS Windows in ... general, say. I worked for ten years as an IT professional, programmer analyst, systems programmer, ..., but mostly on unix; and then used Linux at home from 1997 to 2005. And I haven't dedicated much, months of time, to MS Windows ... "stuff". I look for freeware, TSA seemed like a good resource, and I used MG and Snapfiles as TSA recommended, when it was still recommending NoNags; some ... years ago.
If commercial and freeware defraggers don't do what PageDefrag does, then maybe it's really useful, perhaps even important, to use it.
And if people much more knowledgeable about MS Windows than I am don't know about PageDefrag from Sysinternals, then WOW; they haven't been able to learn everything about the Windows platform and this means that I'm ... "lost in the dust" somewhere much further behind; so far back you don't seen the "dust clouds" you're about to enter into, if you go further (and it might then be better to just head back to using Linux).
:)
Signed,
Anon. from Quebec, Canada, btw
Mike
Corbeil
In my opinion, Minimem is best. It does three things I find invaluable and can't find anywhere else: it allows not to do anything when you still have plenty of RAM, that may seem obvious but many forget RAM is best leveraged when it's used, it allows not touching the RAM usage of the app that's in the forefront, quite useful when you e.g. browse the web or use office applications, and it allows me choosing which applications memory I want to optimize as oppose to just optimize everything or almost everything blindly, pretending to do a better job than Windows. This little tool works beautifully well for me, is very efficient and works on both my XP and Vista boxes.
Worth adding that Minimem can optimize very frequently, like every 30 seconds if you'd like, without using much CPU cycles; if you do the same with Cleanmem your system will slow down every time the scheduler reloads Cleanmem in memory (and of course Cleanmem does use a bit of memory while working; every process does!). But if you want to sanitize your system every 30 minutes or every hour, then the approach used by Cleanmem makes sense.
If you haven't tried CleanMem, I suggest that you give it a try. It doesn't use up any RAM.
Of course I tried Cleanmem; I actually quite like it. Like Minimem, it allows choosing which processes to "purge" as the Cleanmem author would say, althoguh with a reverse logic: Cleanmem requires choosing those you want to exclude from the purge and wil purge everything else, while Minimem requires you choose those to purge, and will leave others intact. The other big difference is that Minimem uses a little bit of memory (around 10K) and very little processor cycles because it spreads the purges over time, all the time, while Cleanmem uses nothing in-between purge cycles, and quite a lot of CPU cycles when it purges; I've seen it at peaks of RAM usage during the purge higher than Minimem too. In my humble opinion, all other so-called memory optimizers are to be avoided, and those two lead the way. Now between Minimem and Cleanmem, I personally find Minimem more optimal; sure it runs all the time, but then this allows it running more optimally over time it seems plus this tool gives me a lot more control than Cleanmem does.
Cleanmem has an "only list". If you put a process in that list, cleanmem will only clean that process and ignore the rest.
So that would be the same as Minimem, with the difference that Cleanmem optimizes memory for all processes in that list at once while Minimem optimizes the time it does so (well, I think), which is better performance wise and allows not optimizing some processs when that is not needed.
Quite clear that Cleanmem and Minimem are the best two tools in this category.
This is an excellent comment. The best Memory Optimizer is not necessarily the one which leaves the biggest figure sitting in your tray!
Yes, I definitely agree with this too. RAM is to be used and one should optimize memory only when it runs out of available RAM. Is there any other memory utility that cleans up memory intelligently, i.e. only when needed, like Minimem?
Doesn't FreeRAM XP do what your asking about? I think it does. A user can set it to automatically run when free RAM reaches whatever limit the user chooses; f.e., I have it set for 15 MB free RAM, but could drop that to 5 or even 1 MB. However, I don't have it set to automatically run, for that setting causes the tool to be a nuisance, automatically running right when I'm in the middle of doing something and the system suddently freezes up. To avoid that, I have it prompt before running the memory clearing operation. This way, I can bring whatever app. I was working in back to the foreground, finish doing what I was doing there, and then run FreeRAM XP.
However, it only clears memory, I think, so ClearMem, which clears a or some cache files might be more helpful for me. I have only 256 MB RAM, total, on my older Optiplex (not being able to swtich to the newer, 2003 model that has 512 MB RAM until being able to afford a sizable hard drive for it, for one of the two drives in the older Optiplex doesn't work with the newer Optiplex and I want two drives in the box, i.e., PC).
I'll give ClearMem a try and if it doesn't improve anything, then I will check out Minimem, which evidently doesn't clear cache files, but only RAM. If this is what happens and Minimem proves to be better for me than FreeRAM XP, then I'll continue using Minimem. Otherwise I'd switch back to FreeRAM XP, which has long been recommended at TSA. FreeRAM XP has a lot of settings, but I've only modified the limit at which it is to run and set it to prompt before actually running. I can't really speak for the other settings and there are several tabs for settings; although I guess only the Program and Memory settings are really important.
You can find out more about it by checking for what TSA says about it, the website for the utility, www.yourwaresolutions.com, and possibly snapfiles.com and majorgeeks.com.
CNET has a review for Minimem and while the editor's rating is good, 4 of 5 stars, and readers or users rated the tool at 5 of 5 stars, the review doesn't inspire downloading and trying out this utility. The review, if really for version 1.3, is from Jan. 15, 2009; however, I noticed that a review for ... I believe Orbit Downloader was not as new as the version of OD that the CNET download link is for, presently.
The Minimem review is the following page and it's definitely not suggesting that people bother with this tool; saying that while it's easy to use, etc., it didn't make any serious difference in the CNET test(s).
http://download.cnet.com/Minimem/3000-2094_4-10871370.html
Snapfiles.com rates Minimem at 3.5 of 5 stars, "Good!", but not "Very Good" or "Excellent", and only one user has commented on this tool there, so far.
http://www.snapfiles.com/reviews/minimem/minimem.html
MajorGeeks.com has nothing on Minimem, except for some references to it in the MG discussion forums. There's no MG download page for this tool; unlike at Snapfiles.
FreeRAM XP gets an excellent, 5 stars of 5 possible, at CNET. Actually, that's for the Pro version, not the Lite one, for which there presently is no rating at CNET, but while both nevertheless have download pages there. (I'm using the Lite, free version.)
http://download.cnet.com
Snapfiles (with 26 user or reader votes) and Majorgeeks (with 529 votes) both rate FreeRAM XP strongly.
http://www.snapfiles.com/get/freeramxp.html
http://majorgeeks.com/FreeRAM_XP_Pro_d1670.html
I'll be trying out ClearMem, anyway; and if it doesn't help, then I guess it'll be straight back to using FreeRAM XP, since CNET says that Minimem doesn't really provide significant improvement and I do get good improvements with FreeRAM XP, just not as much as I'd like; but then I have only 256 MB RAM to begin with, so maybe I'm being to demanding.
I've got an old laptop with a 1000MB CPU and 384MB of memory. FreeRamXP works very well on this old clunker with tiny RAM. Firefox3 uses over 250MB after visiting a chain of news sites with vids etc, and although this is probably a fault condition (that's a ridiculous amount of system resources to use), I guess nobody cares any more as they all have 2GB of RAM.
But the old clunker is on its knees with both that and email running, so a quick burst of FreeRamXP and it gets 100MB of RAM back. Takes about 20 seconds. That's enough to get it running OK again. This is on W2K by the way, no doubt the system memory management is not optimal.
chris.p
You surely mean 1 GHz CPU, istead of "1000MB CPU", since CPU is measured in Hz (and cycles?), I believe; while also believing that we're more likely to find 1 GHz than we are to find a 1000 Hz processor, but maybe there are such CPU's (?).
I know what you mean about Firefox (FF) 3.x taking up plenty of RAM. I am also using Win 2k, but with a less powerful PC than yours. Mine's (and yours is, are) sufficiently powerful for running Linux, including for processor power and RAM, but it's a (year 2000) Dell Optiplex (formerly a server) with an 866 MHz processor and 256 MB RAM, which would be enough to run Linux distros, some good ones anyway, but evidently (learned through frustrating experience and for years, now) is too little for being able to use MS Windows in a "user-friendly" way, say. I read (over the past year) that the very mininum amount of RAM that should be used for running MS Windows (2k and surely or probably more recent) as (I guess, anyway) most people use their PC's (with different app's up at the same time, f.e.) is 512 MB of RAM, while a full gig and more was said to be what basically all MS Windows users should really be using today.
And I'm still at Firefox 2.0.0.20, because of not having liked the FF 3.0 bookmarks manager and the fact that the "Add bookmarks" dialogue box was [tiny] and couldn't be expanded without doing plenty of web searching to find out how to expand the damn box.
I've been using FreeRAM XP for some years now and it's helped, but ClearMem and/or CacheMan will hopefully improve use of this Optiplex, which is sufficiently powerful for me; just lacking ram.
I would recommend that you give cleanmem a try. It does not run continuously, uses very little resources, is quick and, extremely efficient. The situation that you described in your item concerning staying with FF 2.0 and having little memory makes your system a perfect candidate for cleanmen. I have been around for a while (way way over 21) and tried a lot of software. I even help my friends when they have system problems. My experience tells me to leave out the BS and tell it like it is. I sincerely believe that if you try cleanmem on your system with the configuraton you described and change the shedule times to fit your needs (i.e. change the default 30 mins to 10 mins), you will fall in love with the little program. Have a great day.
Dale I just wanted to add that I did not mean to be "anonymous" on that last item. I was cruising the internet and did not log in......OOPs... I have to agree with the editor on this subject.
Signed,
Anon. from Quebec, Canada, btw
"Fresh ram" is the giveaway today! Should I replace my CleanMem with this?
http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/fresh-ram-500/
NO! CleanMem is nice, but has compatibility issues when dealing with Windows Vista, system slowdowns, and also does not support computers with over 2 GB of RAM, so stick with the freeware.
I don't know. Sorry, I've never tried it. Feel free to give it a try and report back to let us know what you think.
Smart Ram is the best for me.It can be set to work at startup and in same time you can manual optimize memory with some 5 deep manual memory optimize.
I've spent a fair amount of time looking for Smart Ram download. It appears that it is no longer available. It apparently has become a part of Iobit's Advanced Care program.
If you can find it by itself, please let me know. I do not think it is available anymore nor is it being developed.
hi, do you have any experience with z-defragram?
I've never heard of it. Can you post a link?
Here is the link:
http://www.point2click.de/
They only have a German version for now.
I apologize, but I cannot review this. I had 2 years of German in high school, but that was __ years ago! (Trust me, it was quite a while ago.) I will not be able to review it until or unless it comes out in an English version. Again, my apologies.
I will add Smart Ram to my next round of testing. I did get your message (I assume that it was yours) forwarded to me from Gizmo.
Thanks for the lead.
Can you also test out minimem. I heard its real good.
I've spent the last 2 weeks trying out Minimem. I've had it installed on my work computer. To be honest, I'm not all that impressed. First of all, like most of these programs (except CleanMem), it must be running at all times in your taskbar. Secondly, I can't really tell if it's doing anything. It certainly doesn't appear to be from my experiences. While it does free up ram, it didn't change my computer experience or make things any faster.
You are certainly welcome to try it out. But, for me, I'm going to stick with CleanMem for now.
Minimem works great for me. Indeed, it does nothing if you set it so it does nothing when you have still plenty of RAM avaialble, plus you have to select the programs you want to optimize memory for.
I will add it to my review queue. Please note: Minimem requires the version 2.0 of the .NET framework to be installed on your computer.
how does advanced systemcare v3's smartram compare with freeram xp? can i have them both operating at the same time?
I'm sorry, but I've never used Advanced Systemcare's Smartram. There shouldn't, however, be any issues with using it and CleanMem.
Kendall, could you please update the direct download link?
It links to the 1.30 version, and 1.4.1 is out, as someone said.
Personally I forgot CleanMem that much that I forgot to update it too, until some minutes ago...
Oops...thought I had done that. Thanks for the reminder.
CleanMem 1.4.0 is out. "Cleanmem now also clears the file cache of the system. The same way CacheSet does."
Thank you. I've updated the review. I'm anxious to try out the new version!
In spite of what many others have written here (even my fellow editors) I find that CleanMem seems to help keep my system running smoothly. It might be all in my head, but it is truly set-it-and-forget it. It should even be better now with the new version.
I tried the new version and it seems that you should use it only when you need it (manually), and not by scheduler. Maybe I'm wrong, please test it further.
Sorry, I'didnt see that 1.4.1 is out, and you can disable new feature in the ignore list. I think the new feature is really great, but only after heavy-weight jobs, like gaming, video converting, huge files copying (with built-in copier), ..., etc.
Post new comment