Memory Booster - automatic memory optimizer

[Prorootect]

.
Memory Booster - automatic memory optimizer here ..

Memory Booster - automatic memory optimizer : on SnapFiles.com : http://www.snapfiles.com/get/memorybooster.html - with download link. Safe, sure. Portable.

From memBoost.chm file:
'Before you think “Not another Memory Booster / Optimizer”, Rizone Memory Booster is not just another Memory Booster. And yes, I know all software companies claim that they have the solution to never upgrading memory again. First of all, most of these companies are full of it, most of them rely on the placebo effect, this is, if you think it’s going to work, it will. Also, most of them will try and optimize your system by forcing memory out of RAM. Rizone Memory Booster does not run on the placebo memory optimization engine and will not force any memory out of your RAM (unless you use the Defrag option). It will however make a Windows API call that tells Windows to clean up the workspace of all processes thus freeing up any memory, processes no longer needs (Clear Processes Working Set). It will do this periodically to help improve the speed and the stability of your system.

Keep in mind that this method will not free up a big amount of RAM, but instead will, as previously stated, improve the stability and performance of your computer. This will also cure memory leaks and in some cases has been able to unfreeze programs. Because it uses a Windows API call, you know that it’s safe to run.'

Boost ALL own Windows processes .. period here: 25 seconds ..

Portable ..

Stays in the Tray ..

I use ..

.. and attend to Datum new version ..

Life is beautiful.

 

[Prorootect]

.
Little correction: it boost all own Windows processes - eg explorer.exe, and your browser processes (in my case: two iexplore.exe), in yellow on Process Hacker .. then too ProcessHacker.exe ..

- NOT winlogon.exe, svchost.exe or services.exe.

 

[HeffeD]

Since most products like this are sheer snake oil and do more harm to system performance than good, I'd love to see some actual performance benchmarks.

 

[Littlebits]

I have tried many products like this and my findings is on older Windows OS systems they can increase performance, however on Vista and Windows 7, the default Windows memory optimization is much better and these products really don't make much different, they even can cause performance loss.

Thanks.

 

[HeffeD]

I have tried many products like this and my findings is on older Windows OS systems they can increase performance, however on Vista and Windows 7, the default Windows memory optimization is much better and these products really don't make much different, they even can cause performance loss.

Anything from Win 98 on, you're better off letting Windows manage memory by itself.

However, since this product claims to do things differently, I'm somewhat intrigued, but not intrigued enough to try it. :blush: I'm willing to bet though, that there are no benchmarks to support the developers statements.

 

[Littlebits]

Rizonesoft merged with Datum, South Africa. Datum will continue to develop all freeware acquired from Rizonesoft and will even bring back other discontinued stuff. We need to re-brand, update and optimize everything, so if you could please be patient while we finish these tasks. Everything should be available for download again by 19 May 2012, Saturday.

http://www.datum-forensics.com/

Rizonesoft is the developer of Memory Booster, so it might be awhile before we can expect to see any benchmarks. So far the new website has no download links for Rizonesoft products.

Thanks.

 

[Prorootect]

.
I have 1022 MB of RAM on my Windows XP..

So I start my PC and wait a little .. then:

Before start of MemBoost.exe:

Current Physical Memory use: 227 MB.
explorer.exe 17.5 MB,

After the start of MemBoost.exe:

Phys. Memory shutdown to 211 MB,
explorer.exe to about 700 kB.


Then I start my IE browser, with the search start page only .. I see in Process Hacker two iexplore.exe processes:

first iexplore.exe: 12.6 MB, and second: 60.1 MB of current Physical Memory use.

After the start of MemBoost.exe,
Physical Memory use shutdown in the first iexplore.exe to about 270 kB, and in second iexplore.exe to about 5.5 MB.

So performance is considerably improved here, yes? ..

..and your performance, please?..

 

[HeffeD]

So performance is considerably improved here, yes? ..

No. The RAM allocated to any given process is no indication of performance.

From the anecdotal evidence you've provided, it appears that this application is acting like any other 'memory optimizer'... :s

'Free' RAM is wasted RAM. There is absolutely no performance improvement derived from large chunks of un-utilized RAM, contrary to what the memory optimizer developers would like you to think.

By forcing applications to page loaded resources, you're only slowing things down. Now when that application needs to access the resources you've prematurely forced to be paged, instead of just grabbing the resources from RAM, (which is very quick) they need to be reloaded from the page file. (not as quick)

Windows tends to do this efficiently. If an application needs more resources, it will page the 'oldest' loaded resources first. Meaning, the things that haven't been used the longest. Chances are pretty good that you won't need these things immediately.

Even if this application is 'using the Windows API' to do its caching, how is this supposed to improve performance? Nothing has actually 'asked' for more resources yet, so 'freeing up' RAM is false economy. Instead, it is the user who has determined that he needs to 'free up' some RAM. (Most likely an erroneous assumption that the system needs it...)

This is why I said I wanted to see some benchmarks. Things like, the time it takes to open a new resource intensive application using the OS's memory management as opposed to the memory optimizer. Or, the delay introduced by prematurely paging resources in use by an open application.

Benchmarks are not: Application x is using this much RAM, I click the button, now it uses this much... This type of information is completely irrelevant in a performance benchmarking discussion.

 

[Prorootect]

Yes HeffeD, I had read similar explanations on the web, thank you!

But it's very nice to 'retrieve' some 32.5 MB of Physical Memory with 'memory boosting' ..
I think to increase the computer memory - up to 2 MB.

For now, the best solution I have found against the PC hangs on some websites, is to disable scripting. My test is Atlas Shrugs website home page .. which hangs here, because this website eats more than 50% of CPU cycles, then IE do not answer more .. (this is not the problem of flash ..).

Life is hard sometimes.

 

[Littlebits]

So performance is considerably improved here, yes? ..

No. The RAM allocated to any given process is no indication of performance.

From the anecdotal evidence you've provided, it appears that this application is acting like any other 'memory optimizer'... :s

'Free' RAM is wasted RAM. There is absolutely no performance improvement derived from large chunks of un-utilized RAM, contrary to what the memory optimizer developers would like you to think.

By forcing applications to page loaded resources, you're only slowing things down. Now when that application needs to access the resources you've prematurely forced to be paged, instead of just grabbing the resources from RAM, (which is very quick) they need to be reloaded from the page file. (not as quick)

Windows tends to do this efficiently. If an application needs more resources, it will page the 'oldest' loaded resources first. Meaning, the things that haven't been used the longest. Chances are pretty good that you won't need these things immediately.

Even if this application is 'using the Windows API' to do its caching, how is this supposed to improve performance? Nothing has actually 'asked' for more resources yet, so 'freeing up' RAM is false economy. Instead, it is the user who has determined that he needs to 'free up' some RAM. (Most likely an erroneous assumption that the system needs it...)

This is why I said I wanted to see some benchmarks. Things like, the time it takes to open a new resource intensive application using the OS's memory management as opposed to the memory optimizer. Or, the delay introduced by prematurely paging resources in use by an open application.

Benchmarks are not: Application x is using this much RAM, I click the button, now it uses this much... This type of information is completely irrelevant in a performance benchmarking discussion.

I could have not explained this better myself, also to add benchmarks are not always accurate either. Many users believe that the less RAM a product uses the lighter it will run on a system which in many cases is false. Not even CPU cycles, handles and threads are an accurate measurements to determine how light a product runs, but is more reliable than judging by RAM. It all depends on the system response time which sometimes can be affected by RAM, CPU (cycles, handles and threads, etc), but in some cases, products with using high RAM and CPU may run much lighter than ones with lower RAM and CPU because they have a faster response time.

So in other words a light program should have faster system response time (maybe or maybe not affected by RAM or CPU).

Thanks.

 

[HeffeD]

I could have not explained this better myself, also to add benchmarks are not always accurate either. Many users believe that the less RAM a product uses the lighter it will run on a system which in many cases is false. Not even CPU cycles, handles and threads are an accurate measurements to determine how light a product runs, but is more reliable than judging by RAM. It all depends on the system response time which sometimes can be affected by RAM, CPU (cycles, handles and threads, etc), but in some cases, products with using high RAM and CPU may run much lighter than ones with lower RAM and CPU because they have a faster response time.

So in other words a light program should have faster system response time (maybe or maybe not affected by RAM or CPU).

Very true. Benchmarks are not the be all, and end all. As you say, there are many factors that can affect performance during a benchmark. This is why benchmarks are generally run multiple times and an average of the results are used.

And even then, the benchmarks only really relate to the system being benchmarked. A different system hardware configuration (even software load-out) may have drastically different results. However, they do give a reasonable approximation of expected performance.

And yes, a small memory footprint doesn't always mean better performance. A poorly written small program can absolutely hammer your system, performance-wise. While a precisely optimized large program can barely affect system performance, even though it's maintaining some substantial real estate.

 

[davegeeit]

RecoveryFix Memory Optimizer is a good memory optimizer tool that can clean up and optimize your system memory. It enables user to set the critical limit of the memory usage and set the software to automatically optimize memory when it reaches the definite critical limit.

Thanks

 

[jamescv7]

This tool could be handy when its RAM are lesser than its standard like 4GB or more.

Because let's say like all laptops, everything specs are in fixed matter so it gave the best performance as possible even the application you've installed may only contributed a slight factor of slowdown.

But of course you need to watch out for the running drain RAM caused may cause system freeze there.

 

[rebel4life]

hiya check this one out very good one from wise care

http://www.wisecleaner.com/wisememoryoptimizerfree.html