CleanMem Memory Cleaner
Dan
or useless. The newly released CleanMem1.21 works differently from the
others and claims to be truly effective. Decide for yourself.
Homepage:
http://www.pcwintech.com/node/145
--
Regards,
Dan
hummingbird
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:15:57 -0700 'Dan'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
Several worthwhile comments form that article:
"Other memory cleaners end up forcing the memory into the page
file slowing down your system. This tool does not. The API call
frees up unused memory from programs, when a program needs the
memory again it can simply take it back instead of forcing the
memory out of ram and into the page file."
"...memory leaks from programs will be a thing of the past with
this tool. If there a process that you don’t want CleanMem to
optimize the memory, you can simply put the process name on
CleanMem Ignore List (cleanmem_ignore_list.txt)"
I've just installed and run the portable version and it
significantly increases available RAM w/o any degradation in
performance. That's probably by eliminating program leaks.
--
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed,
and third, it is accepted as self-evident"
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
John Stubbings
news:kmj4e4tqo401h1ip5...@4ax.com...
Have you read this
"CleanMem doesn't work like other memory cleaners that do nothing but force
windows to free up memory by using up all the available memory. This old
trick then causes your system to lag big time!"
Sounds like a salesman..
"Cleanmem works in a matter of about 5 sec. It uses a windows API call that
is in Windows 2000, XP, 2003, Vista & 2008 that tells windows to cleanup the
workspace of a processes thus freeing up any memory the process no longer
needs. Other memory cleaners end up forcing the memory into the page file
slowing down your system. This tool does not. The API call frees up unused
memory from programs, when a program needs the memory again it can simply
take it back instead of forcing the memory out of ram and into the page
file."
So first statement says "other memory cleaners that do nothing but force
windows to free up memory by using up all the available memory"
Second statement says "Other memory cleaners end up forcing the memory into
the page file"
Make up your mind... which is it?
Note "Cleanmem works in a matter of about 5 sec"
So it wastes 5 seconds then
"If a processes needs more memory it gets it back in a second."
So it slows down that application then? for another second
"So basically set it and forget it, memory leaks from programs will be a
thing of the past with this tool. "
No they won't the memory leaks remain, was this written by a salesman
If you want to waste your life looking at task manager and going whoopee I
cleared out my memory I recommend this program...
alvey
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:15:57 -0700 'Dan'
> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>
>>Up to now, experts have characterized memory cleaners as troublesome
>>or useless. The newly released CleanMem1.21 works differently from the
>>others and claims to be truly effective. Decide for yourself.
>>
>>Homepage:
>>http://www.pcwintech.com/node/145
>>
>>Review:
>>http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/2008/09/28/easily-reduce-memory-usage-on-all-running-processes-in-windows/
>
>
> Several worthwhile comments form that article:
1. They're not "comments". They are the sales spiel.
2. No worthwhile comments "form" that article.
>
> "Other memory cleaners end up forcing the memory into the page
> file slowing down your system. This tool does not. The API call
> frees up unused memory from programs, when a program needs the
> memory again it can simply take it back instead of forcing the
> memory out of ram and into the page file."
>
> "...memory leaks from programs will be a thing of the past with
> this tool. If there a process that you don’t want CleanMem to
> optimize the memory, you can simply put the process name on
> CleanMem Ignore List (cleanmem_ignore_list.txt)"
>
>
> I've just installed and run the portable version and it
> significantly increases available RAM w/o any degradation in
> performance.
Pardon? If "...it significantly increases available RAM w/o any degradation
in performance." then what's the point of installing it?
alvey
Flasherly
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:46:11 +0100, hummingbird wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:15:57 -0700 'Dan'
> > wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>
> >>Up to now, experts have characterized memory cleaners as troublesome
> >>or useless. The newly released CleanMem1.21 works differently from the
> >>others and claims to be truly effective. Decide for yourself.
>
> >>Homepage:
> >>http://www.pcwintech.com/node/145
>
> >>Review:
>
> > Several worthwhile comments form that article:
>
> 1. They're not "comments". They are the sales spiel.
> 2. No worthwhile comments "form" that article.
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Other memory cleaners end up forcing the memory into the page
> > file slowing down your system. This tool does not. The API call
> > frees up unused memory from programs, when a program needs the
> > memory again it can simply take it back instead of forcing the
> > memory out of ram and into the page file."
>
> > "...memory leaks from programs will be a thing of the past with
> > this tool. If there a process that you don¢t want CleanMem to
> > optimize the memory, you can simply put the process name on
> > CleanMem Ignore List (cleanmem_ignore_list.txt)"
>
> > I've just installed and run the portable version and it
> > significantly increases available RAM w/o any degradation in
> > performance.
>
> Pardon? If "...it significantly increases available RAM w/o any degradation
> in performance." then what's the point of installing it?
>
> alvey
I'm curious foremost how this might interact with FireFox's cache
(physical plus VM pool), which CleanMem forces FireFox physical memory
into the Windows' disk cache. Instantaneously via a hotkey or
regularly via the scheduler. What occurs with FireFox then is memory
is simply reloaded. What I won't know for awhile yet is whether it'll
allay or benefit some of the sluggishness FireFox tends to exhibit
after connected for extended periods, partly corrected prior by force
crashing it and then using a recovery add-on extension to restore the
session.
hummingbird
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 05:25:39 -0700 (PDT) 'Flasherly'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>I'm curious foremost how this might interact with FireFox's cache
>(physical plus VM pool), which CleanMem forces FireFox physical memory
>into the Windows' disk cache. Instantaneously via a hotkey or
>regularly via the scheduler. What occurs with FireFox then is memory
>is simply reloaded. What I won't know for awhile yet is whether it'll
>allay or benefit some of the sluggishness FireFox tends to exhibit
>after connected for extended periods, partly corrected prior by force
>crashing it and then using a recovery add-on extension to restore the
>session.
As I mentioned in several other posts, I took some snapshots of
TaskManager before *and* after running CleanMem, and noticed
significantly reduced RAM consumption by a bunch of programs
without any change in pagefile usage.
Notably: explorer, my browser, news client and DigiTV programs.
The best reductions appear to take place after I've booted the
system and started all the programs I use daily.
Some programs which reduce RAM consumption appear to increase
it a little over the minutes that follow, but not back to the
original level. I suspect there's excessive RAM usage by a lot of
programs, not to mention leaks etc.
What the hell: it's a 36KB non-install portable program.
Ari
> I've just installed and run the portable version and it
> significantly increases available RAM w/o any degradation in
> performance. That's probably by eliminating program leaks.
lol
You don't know how, you have no testing parameters but you think it is
because it eliminates program leaks.
Uh, clue coming. CleanMom isn't application specific, you BirdBrain.
Ari
>> Pardon? If "...it significantly increases available RAM w/o any degradation
>> in performance." then what's the point of installing it?
>>
>> alvey
>
> I'm curious foremost how this might interact with FireFox's cache
> (physical plus VM pool), which CleanMom forces FireFox physical memory
> into the Windows' disk cache. Instantaneously via a hotkey or
> regularly via the scheduler. What occurs with FireFox then is memory
> is simply reloaded. What I won't know for awhile yet is whether it'll
> allay or benefit some of the sluggishness FireFox tends to exhibit
> after connected for extended periods, partly corrected prior by force
> crashing it and then using a recovery add-on extension to restore the
> session.
No.
Franklin
<news:a9bd8b53-d26e-4394...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups
.com>:
Alvey, you're dead right. If memory is freed up and the app needs to
reload into that memory then what was the point?
Will Cleanmem flush pages out of memory and then reload many of those
pages *without* the unreleased temporary pages that an application is
wrongly holding on to? That is what Cleanmem's blurb about memory
leaks suggests it can do.
Assuming Cleanmem's method actually works then is that improvement
greater than the overhead of reloading all the memory pages that are
actually will be wanted again? Especially when the hard drive is
busy doing other work.
Too messy to guess the outcome. Best to just try it and see if a user
actually notices an improvement.
Cleanmem doesn't help me. Maybe that's because any memory leaks I
may have never seemed all that serious.
Others also remains unpersuaded about the theory.
<http://www.donationcoder.com/Forums/bb/index.php?topic=
14487.msg125261> or <http://preview.tinyurl.com/422mde>
Ari
> The best reductions appear to take place after I've booted the
> system and started all the programs I use daily.
Swallow, where do you think this majickal memory cleaner upper is
putting this data? Thin air? Under your crotch (you wish)? If it
eradicates the data, then the app has to recreate it. If it pagefiles
it, its no net loss. If it fixs he app so the app won't leak, and you
believe that, then both you and the author of CleanMom are charlatans.
Smoke and mirrors and bullshit.
Toad
CleanMem calls the following win32 API:
EmptyWorkingSet
The EmptyWorkingSet function removes as many pages as possible from the
working set of the specified process.
BOOL EmptyWorkingSet(
HANDLE hProcess // handle to process
);
Parameters
hProcess
[in] Handle to the process.
Return Value
If the function succeeds, the return value is nonzero.
If the function fails, the return value is zero. To get extended error
information, call GetLastError.
Remarks
You can also use the SetProcessWorkingSetSize function to do what
EmptyWorkingSet does if you pass it -1 for the minimum and maximum
sizes.
Now here is a blurb about SetProcessWorkingSetSize:
If both dwMinimumWorkingSetSize and dwMaximumWorkingSetSize have the
value -1, the function temporarily trims the working set of the
specified process to zero. This essentially swaps the process out of
physical RAM memory.
Toad
--
Ari
>> Swallow, where do you think this majickal memory cleaner upper is
>> putting this data? Thin air? Under your crotch (you wish)? If it
>> eradicates the data, then the app has to recreate it. If it pagefiles
>> it, its no net loss. If it fixs he app so the app won't leak, and you
>> believe that, then both you and the author of CleanMom are charlatans.
>>
>> Smoke and mirrors and bullshit.
>
> You have no clue what you are talking about, if your not a programmer
> and dont understand the windows API then dont talk untill you have
> done your research.
lol
Hi, NewBoi, gee, don't know much about me, do you?
> Cleanmem page has been updated to state how it works for people will
> hopefully finally understand. Cleanmem doesnt clean the memory,
> cleanmem asks windows to, and windows does the work.
>
> http://www.pcwintech.com/node/144646
Go away Asshole. Troll for the Bear and Milbankshomo on your time, not
mine.
Alfred Einstein
"alvey" <al...@play.com> wrote in message
news:1rn8lv4whofd7.1...@40tude.net...
What's the point? Well ... here you go ...
1. When your memory is clean, you get fewer slowdowns.
2. Dirty memory can cause buildup of power-robbing sludge, which can be
costly to repair. Clean it up!
3. Clean memory can improve your system's cache-modulated hyper-swap,
leading to reduced disk thrashing.
4. Dynomometer tests show that systems with clean memory deliver 10-15 more
horsepower.
What more could you want?
Ari
wrote:
> There seems to be alot of confusion about how CleanMem actually works.
Go away NewBoi Asshole. Troll for the Bear and Milbankshomo on your
time, not mine.
Ari
>> lol
>>
>> You don't know how, you have no testing parameters but you think it is
>> because it eliminates program leaks.
>>
>> Uh, clue coming. CleanMom isn't application specific, you BirdBrain.
>
> CleanMem calls the following win32 API:
Hi sockpuppetnewboi, Go away Asshole. Troll for the Bear and
alvey
A wash, a vacumn and the tyres blackened thanks.
alvey
John Stubbings
news:fCWEk.43112$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
Good points, I also recommend changing the oil on your PC every 30000 flops
hummingbird
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:14:07 +0100 'John Stubbings'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
...or even more often if your fans make a graunching noise ;-)
Dan
wrote:
>"Sounds like a salesman.. " - Dan
>"So it wastes 5 seconds then..." -Dan
>"No they won't the memory leaks remain..." - Dan
Abide, wrong attribution.
I think I'm the only Dan in this thread, and I didn't say those
things.
Otherwise, nice post.
--
Regards,
Dan
John Stubbings
Thank you.
eh? I quoted your entire post and I asked "Have you read this" meaning the
web site.
The quotes were from the web site you posted, seemed clear to me, but if I
have confused anyone I apologize.
Hope that clears it up.
Franklin
<news:lOUEk.7075$i84....@newsfe10.iad>:
Windows automatically performs process trimming.
I already posted a link to a brief discussion about this at
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/422mde> in
<news:Xns9B2B7BA...@news-1.octanews.net>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms682606(VS.85).aspx
The acid test is whether it makes any difference to the end user.
Do you know if it does?
abide.in...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 18:08:48 -0700 (PDT), abide.in.the.v...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >"Sounds like a salesman.. " - Dan
> >"So it wastes 5 seconds then..." -Dan
> >"No they won't the memory leaks remain..." - Dan
>
> Abide, wrong attribution.
>
> I think I'm the only Dan in this thread, and I didn't say those
> things.
>
> Otherwise, nice post.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Dan
My apologies Dan. I read the header of the quote and thought it was
you saying that. I should have attributed those quotes to John
Stubbings. If I could edit my post I would. I think I will delete /
repost it to fix that problem. Few other typos to fix as well.
abide.in...@gmail.com
one where I associated the wrong person with some quotes. Lest anyone
should be misrepresented I decided to delete and repost my message
with the fixes.]
There seems to be alot of confusion about how CleanMem actually
works.
I have tried some memory cleaners in the past and found they really
did not improve performance in the end because they just forced
everything out of RAM into the pagefile and then they just need to
page all that info back into RAM when attempting to access that
program, and since the pagefile is found on the hard drive and the
hard drive is slower than RAM, it has a negative impact on
performance. Perhaps one of the few uses of doing that is making sure
there is more available RAM for a particular memory intensive
application that you are about to use. This is just speculation on my
part because I gave up on memory cleaners a long time ago and don't
recall every really putting that theory to the test. One of my
favorite applications that cleaned memory was Cacheman because it
would allow you to page out individual programs instead of just doing
an overall page out. This allows you to be more selective with
programs you know you aren't going to be using for a while, however I
never really took advantage of the feature.
CleanMem does not work like this. It does not use the pagefile. It
cleans out memory by taking advantage of a feature in Windows that
cleans up unused memory from applications. It does not page out
anything. I have tried it myself: the amount of available memory goes
up while the page file stays the same. Individual programs decrease
in
memory usage and in the process the page file does not go up. So the
first misconception about CleanMem is that it works the same as other
memory cleaners by paging data from the RAM into the pagefile. This
is
false. It does not touch the pagefile.
Basically CleanMem can help clear up memory leaks. It does not ensure
that their will not be any memory leaks, but it cleans them up. It
does this not by itself, but by telling Windows to do it. So the
default settings of scheduling CleanMem to run every 30 minutes
should
be good because it should help keep your system's memory from being
hogged up by unused data.
Now I am going to go through several things that were said in this
thread
and attempt to reply to them:
"Sounds like a salesman.. " - John Stubbings
Whether it sounds like a salesman or not, I do not see where
summarizing the difference between CleanMem and other memory cleaners
is dishonest or wrong in anyways... which I think is what you are
implying. Secondly, CleanMem is free; is he trying to sell it? No,
he's trying to give it to those who would like to take advantage of
what it's capable of.
"So it wastes 5 seconds then..." - John Stubbings
Sorry, I don't mean to be rude here or anything, it just really
sounds
like your trying to find anything you can to say CleanMem cannot
possible work. Anything that does any memory cleaning is going to
take
some time to work. What is interesting about CleanMem is that even
though it takes about 5 seconds to cleanup unused application data,
it
does not seem to degrade (decrease) performance during that time.
This
might have to do with the fact that it's not accessing the pagefile
during the cleaning. In fact, Windows is doing the cleaning, not
CleanMem.
"No they won't the memory leaks remain..." - John Stubbings
Could you please explain why the memory leaks remain? If CleanMem can
effectively use the Windows API to free up unused memory as it claims
to, then how would a memory leak remain after it has been cleaned?
"Pardon? If '...it significantly increases available RAM w/o any
degradation in performance.' then what's the point of installing it?"
- alvey
Sorry if I am misunderstanding your post, but you do understand that
"degradation" means "decrease" not "increase," correct? In other
words, if CleanMem can effectively increase available RAM without any
decrease in performance, then it is much better than the other memory
cleaners out there because it can do what other memory cleaners have
failed to do.
"I'm curious foremost how this might interact with FireFox's cache
(physical plus VM pool), which CleanMem forces FireFox physical
memory
into the Windows' disk cache." - Flasherly
Well, to see if it decreases performance any we could test it to see
if there is any noticeable decrease in performance (or increase). If
it is a concern, then one could add Firefox to CleanMem's ignore list
and CleanMem should not touch Firefox's memory usage.
"Uh, clue coming. CleanMom isn't application specific, you
BirdBrain."
- Ari
Is there need for this name calling? I thought hummingbird had an
honest response from experience using the application. I am also not
sure I understand what your point is by saying that CleanMem isn't
application specific. Could you please elaborate?
"Best to just try it and see if a user actually notices an
improvement." - Franklin
I agree.
"Cleanmem doesn't help me. Maybe that's because any memory leaks I
may have never seemed all that serious." - Franlin
Could be the case. I tested this once on a freshly installed Windows
2000 setup and it did not make any difference. When I tested it on my
current setup on Windows XP, it usually frees up around 100 - 200 MB.
Result will vary depending on what's running and how many memory
leaks
there are. I've heard of CleanMem freeing up to 600 MB of RAM.
"Swallow, where do you think this majickal memory cleaner upper is
putting this data? Thin air? Under your crotch (you wish)? If it
eradicates the data, then the app has to recreate it. If it pagefiles
it, its no net loss. If it fixs he app so the app won't leak, and you
believe that, then both you and the author of CleanMom are
charlatans." - Ari
In response to your last claim about CleanMem fixing an apps memory
leak, this misrepresents what CleanMem does. It does not fix memory
leaks, it cleans them up. CleanMem is not going to guarantee that
memory leaks never occur. What it should do, however, is get Windows
to cleanup those memory leaks when they occur (or more specifically
when CleanMem runs via task scheduler).
I hope this helps.
Bear Bottoms
news:Xns9B2BE217AF0C10...@comcast.dca.giganews.com:
> A memory leak is an area of memory that's been allocated by a process
> that no longer exists. Typically, only the process that allocates the
> memory can access it. If that process is no longer running (crash,
> bad clean up job, etc.) it's essentially dead memory. In the handle
> table, it points to a process that isn't there.
>
> As for the other points I have no comment except to say that every
> so-called memory cleaner or memory freeing program I've used or seen
> reviewed by anybody who knew what they were talking about have all
> been worthless. Windows cleans up when it needs to. I believe it's
> more a psychological thing than anything else. Some people like
> seeing a big number in their little "free memory" widget.
>
I don't think there is anyone here who hasn't experienced more than their
share of browser crashes. Browsers are the worst of the culprits that bloat
up with memory leaks that build up over time and cause crashes. Controlling
that virtually eliminates that issue. That alone stimulates it's worth.
--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website: http://bearware.info
Ari
> As for the other points I have no comment except to say that every so-called
> memory cleaner or memory freeing program I've used or seen reviewed by
> anybody who knew what they were talking about have all been worthless.
This one is no diff.
More bearshitware
John Stubbings
news:Xns9B2CFF6BFFC90Z...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> memory leaks. XP and Vista handle what they can. I believe the OP said
> the
> program in question issued API calls to initiate clean up. How a program
> can tell Windows to identify and clean up another program's/processes'
> memory leaks is a bit dubious sounding. I'm not saying it doesn't, I've
> just never seen or heard of such a program.
> --
Yep, I've not seen a single technical argument that explains how 'memory
cleaners' can work or have any benefit.
Microsoft is a hugely powerful company, the kind of team they would put
together to program the memory management would consist of guys at the top
of their game, they can afford it.
Behind the simple API call is Microsoft's own code. All this program does is
call that.
So what BB and his cronies are saying is Microsoft's memory management team
missed a simple trick to call their own code that has a significant effect
on the speed of the OS and clears up memory leaks.
When Bill reads this he's gonna be so mad. That extra oomph would have meant
billions of dollars of more revenue from corporates who didn't upgrade
because their hardware couldn't hack it
I don't think so.
John Corliss
Heh. In the past year, I've experienced about maybe three crashes when I
was using Firefox. That's really not too many. And when I tried to load
the problematic page again, it usually turned out that the main problem
was that I hadn't waited long enough for it to load or else the code had
a serious problem. Guess I'm just luck? 80)>
Of course, the maximum number of pages I usually will load is one row of
tabs. If a second row starts, I begin to look for tabs to shut down.
--
John Corliss BS206. I use nFilter to block all Google Groups posts
because of Googlespam. No ad, cd, commercial, cripple, demo, dotnet,
nag, share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares OR warez for me, please.
John Corliss
> memory leaks. XP and Vista handle what they can. I believe the OP said the
> program in question issued API calls to initiate clean up. How a program
> can tell Windows to identify and clean up another program's/processes'
> memory leaks is a bit dubious sounding. I'm not saying it doesn't, I've
> just never seen or heard of such a program.
Seems to me it would run something similar to Process Explorer in the
background, and compare that against the memory. It would be easy to see
that if a loaded .dll or process was orphaned, it could be removed from
memory. If it popped back up, then...
B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson
> I don't think there is anyone here who hasn't experienced more than their
> share of browser crashes. Browsers are the worst of the culprits that bloat
> up with memory leaks that build up over time and cause crashes. Controlling
> that virtually eliminates that issue. That alone stimulates it's worth.
EmptyWorkingSet will not remove memory leaks. It may page them out
from physical memory. If a program crashes because of memory leaks,
it will continue to do so. (Usually, because it tries to access code
or data in memory ranges, where it actually has none or where at the
moment resides old or otherwise wrong data/code.) The pages will just
be paged-in, again, and the crash will occur.
You may monitor this behavior through SysInternals ProcessExplorer:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx
Go to View->SelectColumns->ProcessMemory and tick-in PageFaults,
VirtualSize and all WorkingSet information you may be interested in.
Run programs without CleanMem or similar programs running and save
the current status to disk (File->SaveAs). Now (without changing
anything else) run CleanMem and give it time to do its job. You may
alternatively consider to use empty.exe from MS Server resource kit:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=9d467a69-57ff-4ae7-96ee-b18c4790cffd
Again, save the status. Switch to the program you think most likely
being influenced by CleanMem (e.g. your browser) and work a bit
with it. Save the next snapshot from ProcessExplorer.
Now compare all three saved status lists. Between save 1 and 2 you
probably see a noticeable drop of the working set size. The amount
of virtual memory used ("VirtualSize"), OTOH, should stay unchanged,
as long as the program in question didn't actually work in between
in background.
From step 2 to step 3, the size of the working set probably grows
a good deal, although most likely without reaching the previous
size, though. You probably also see a noticeable increase in page
faults. - Every page currently not in memory raises a page fault,
before it gets (re)loaded.
After CleanMem ran, you thus usually experience more free physical
memory. But the Windows memory manager is *optimized* to use your
whole physical memory as efficient as possible. If a process has
more physical memory in use than it reclaims after EmptyWorkingSet
ran, this is an indication, that you are not in a low memory
situation for physical RAM, at the moment. Else, the memory manager
would have paged-out the least recent/often used pages, already.
Microsoft, itself wrote in the PerfMon documentation, that the
EmptyWorkingSet function was created for "testing and tuning".
It was not meant as a replacement for the highly sophisticated
memory manager versions, built into the various versions of
Windows.
Speaking of this: I didn't find a pointer, whether EmptyWorkingSet
might conflict with the SuperFetch technology built into the Vista
memory manager. If it does, you may experience more than the little
time loss connected to reloading pages every time CleanMem has
finished its task.
I can think of a possible scenario, where CleanMem (or better a
single-run tool like empty.exe) could help: If a program uses
SetProcessWorkingSetSize with a high minimum, this may conflict
with low-memory situations as well as optimizations done by the
Windows memory manager. Calling EmptyWorkingSet could re-adjust
the minimum size of the working set. If this is the case, you
(IMHO) shouldn't do the adjustment by means of tools like CleanMem
on your PC, but contact the program author to rework the memory
management of the program.
BeAr
--
===========================================================================
= What do you mean with: "Perfection is always an illusion"? =
===============================================================--(Oops!)===
abide.in...@gmail.com
> On Fri 03 Oct08 00:47, <abide.in.the.v...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <news:4ebf19d9-07af-420e...@h60g2000hsg.googlegroups
> .com>:
>
>
>
> > [This is a repost of my first message to fix some typos,
> > especially one where I associated the wrong person with some
> > quotes. Lest anyone should be misrepresented I decided to delete
> > and repost my message with the fixes.]
>
Yes, I just deleted it. For some reason my posts were taking a while
to show after posting them, so I waited until the new one showed
before deleting the old one.
Ari
> I don't think
Bear Bottoms aka William "Bear" Bottoms (Google for more info) infamous
for his posting of *any* freeware regardless of its lack of development
as a means to draw attention to himself.
Bottoms claims to be a "freeware scientist", "a beta tester" and
a "security expert". He is none of these. He *is* a full blown,
dirt-dumb imbecile though.
William "Bear" Bottoms is devoid of integrity and is untrustworthy even
with his closest and most trusted friends.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4y6qqz
His attempted dominance of Alt.Comp.Freeware (ACF) is his only,
self-absorbed priority.
!!*BEWARE OF BEARWARE*!!
Ari
> So what BB and his cronies are saying is Microsoft's memory management team
> missed a simple trick to call their own code that has a significant effect
> on the speed of the OS and clears up memory leaks.
>
> When Bill reads this he's gonna be so mad.
______________
/ \
| WHAAAAAAAAAAA! |
\__ _________/
/ ,'
_.~._ /,'
,~'.~@~.`~.
/ : _..._ : \
{ :,"''\\`".: }
`C) 0 _ 0 (--.._,-"""-.__
( ) @ ( ) `.
`-.-_-.-' \
,' \ / ,` ;`-._,-.
,' ,'/ ,' `---t.,-. \_
,--.,',' ,'----.__\ _( \----'
'///,`,--.,' `-.__.--' `. )
'///,' `-`
Bear Bottoms
news:1b3951e7-b65d-47f1...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 3, 3:38 am, "B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson"
>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=9d467a69-57f.
>> .
> .
> ==================================================> = What do you mean
> with: "Perfection is always an illusion"? >
> ========================
> =======================================--(Oops!)== Bear, I like seeing
> people doing the research and truly giving good opinions I respect
> your response.
>
> For everyone else a new version of cleanmem is out, let the bashing
> begin for those of you not actually trying it.
>
> The new 1.3.0 version lets you have a only list, you can now tell
> cleanmem to only clean certain processes, if the list is blank it will
> clean all. gives the user more control.
>
I like that to. The portable version has a text file in which you simply
name the process you wish to omit. I didn't look at the new install
version to see if that is also how you do it there.
Franklin
<br.ed...@expires-2008-10-31.arcornews.de> wrote in
<news:1cwzlogl...@br.ederson.news.arcor.de>:
Nice piece, BeAr.
The NT Resource Kit has a couple of related chapters.
Detecting Cache Bottlenecks
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/cc749872.aspx
Detecting Memory Bottlenecks
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/cc722473.aspx
Bear Bottoms
@news-3.octanews.net:
There are a lot of people who disagree with this. I've posted a couple of
articles about FF memory leaks resulting in often crashes. I have
experienced such as most likely everyone here has. Sounds like a nice M$
commercial, but I don't think they have a suitable solution for these
issues.
Franklin
<anna.riceD...@virgin.net> wrote in
<news:QvWdnb9oVqlbR3jV...@pipex.net>:
> "Tim Weaver" <tmw9...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B2CFF6BFFC90Z0thecheeseclub0Z0
@comcast.dca.giganews.com.
> ..
>> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Weaver <tmw9...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:Xns9B2BE217AF0C10Z0thecheeseclub0Z0
@comcast.dca.giganews.c
>>> om:
I can probably believe a Microsoft development team not getting it
quite 100% right the first time but if that happened then a later
patch would soon fix that.
I agree it would be surprising if the development team did miss
it. After all, it is Microsoft who provided the actual Windows
API command which CleanMem is based on. And it is also Microsoft
who provided the NT Resource Kit which has a couple of similar
utilities to CleanMem. They were intended only for testing and not
for production use because WinXP already implements automatic
cleaning.
Franklin
in <news:Xns9B2D5376C8AD8b...@85.214.90.236>:
>>
>> The NT Resource Kit has a couple of related chapters.
>>
>> Detecting Cache Bottlenecks
>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/cc749872.aspx
>>
>> Detecting Memory Bottlenecks
>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/cc722473.aspx
>>
> There are a lot of people who disagree with this.
Do you have a link for any of those peole who disagree with the
windows theory explained in the Resource Kit manual about how NT/XP
works and how to use various functions to detect cache or memory
bottlenecks?
Bear Bottoms
1.octanews.net:
> They were intended only for testing and not
> for production use because WinXP already implements automatic
> cleaning.
>
No it doesn't, or at least it does a poor job of managing memory leaks.
I've witnessed it and it's results many times.
Bear Bottoms
1.octanews.net:
> Do you have a link for any of those peole who disagree with the
> windows theory explained in the Resource Kit manual about how NT/XP
> works and how to use various functions to detect cache or memory
> bottlenecks?
>
Already posted. I see you are still having an issue keeping up.
Franklin
in <news:Xns9B2D9252F489be...@85.214.90.236>:
> Franklin <see_re...@home.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9B2DB37F8A584D92F1@news- 1.octanews.net:
>
>> They were intended only for testing and not
>> for production use because WinXP already implements automatic
>> cleaning.
>>
>
> No it doesn't, or at least it does a poor job of managing memory
> leaks. I've witnessed it and it's results many times.
>
I think all the following memory optimizers also claim to deal
with memory leaks just as ClearMem does. Like ClearMem they all
said they were new and radically different and better and greater
than anything else before them.
They have all been argued over and in the end shown to have no
real effect.
Perhaps you have come to this debate only recently and the
doomsayers seem persuasive but theirs is really the same old
argument.
A few weeks ago we talked about clearing XP's Prefetch folder.
These tweaks are myths and based on mythunderstandings (sic).
Clean RAM
http://nomorehistory.com/
Free RAM
http://www.yourwaresolutions.com/software.html
Max RAM Optimizer
http://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/Max-RAM-Optimizer-Download-
81746.html
Franklin
in <news:Xns9B2D926D48F40b...@85.214.90.236>:
> Franklin <see_re...@home.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9B2DB44CB714AD92F1@news- 1.octanews.net:
>
>> Do you have a link for any of those peole who disagree with the
>> windows theory explained in the Resource Kit manual about how
>> NT/XP works and how to use various functions to detect cache or
>> memory bottlenecks?
>>
> Already posted. I see you are still having an issue keeping up.
>
Mr Bottoms, ok I get it. All you're doing now is goofing around
rather than having a sensible discussion.
I don't run any of these mem utils. You go run CleanMem and recommend
it on your website.
It's now end of topic for me because instead of discussion it's now
just goofing.
Bear Bottoms
@news-1.octanews.net:
That may well be so...myths that is. Science is no myth. Memory leaks are
real...science. XP doesn't manage it well or it wouldn't
happen....real...science. Maybe someone will sort it all out
definitively, maybe not. Is it Windows' fault or the program that leaks
to the point of causing issues! Does CleanMem help? You say no, I say
yes...hello hello.
Have I decompiled the program and understand all of the functions of what
it does...no. From what I've seen, it works just the way the author says
it does. I turn the light on, it comes on, I'm happy. I haven't had any
browser crashes since. If I start having issues...I'll say damn. If not,
whoo wee.
I do know one thing. It does more than what Toad thought. I see the
memory footprint reduce, the pagefile stays the same and the browser
doesn't bloat up and crash. So far so good.
Bear Bottoms
@news-1.octanews.net:
You can call it goofing around, but it won't entice me to post links
twice.
Franklin
in <news:Xns9B2DAF3B1E126b...@85.214.90.236>:
Hello!
> Have I decompiled the program and understand all of the
> functions of what it does...no. From what I've seen, it works
> just the way the author says it does. I turn the light on, it
> comes on, I'm happy.
What if you turn the light on, it fails to come on but you think
it has come on.
What would you see in the dark if you believed it was illuminated?
Deadly ghosts and demons probably. And dangerous memory leaks.
> I haven't had any browser crashes since. If
> I start having issues...I'll say damn. If not, whoo wee.
>
> I do know one thing. It does more than what Toad thought. I see
> the memory footprint reduce, the pagefile stays the same and the
> browser doesn't bloat up and crash. So far so good.
>
Oh yes, memory footprint yes-yes pagefile sure-sure bloated
browser certainly-certainly. Pretty persuasive then. No doubt
about that conclusion. Scientifically proven, alright.
BTW have you seen if it makes any difference to ... you know,
well, er, I mean, I'm just wondering, you know, er, um, em, well
to, em ... the user?
Bear Bottoms
3.octanews.net:
> BTW have you seen if it makes any difference to ... you know,
> well, er, I mean, I'm just wondering, you know, er, um, em, well
> to, em ... the user?
>
Me thinks you doth protest too much and listen too little. Of course I have
said no browser crashes since it's use. If I never have another browser
crash, could it be magic?
Bear Bottoms
3.octanews.net:
>> You can call it goofing around, but it won't entice me to post
>> links twice.
>>
>
> No. Of course not. That would be a dangerous thing.
>
Danger is in the eye of the beholder...also beauty? One may consider beauty
and be pleased. To consider danger when there is obviously none is drama.
alvey
> Franklin <see_re...@home.com> wrote in news:Xns9B2DF04695F66D92F1@news-
> 3.octanews.net:
>
>>> You can call it goofing around, but it won't entice me to post
>>> links twice.
>>>
>>
>> No. Of course not. That would be a dangerous thing.
>>
> Danger is in the eye of the beholder...also beauty? One may consider beauty
> and be pleased. To consider danger when there is obviously none is drama.
If the albatross were to speak like a lizard then would apples fly?
alvey
Franklin
in <news:Xns9B2DCF660B698b...@85.214.90.236>:
> Franklin <see_re...@home.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9B2DF016CF9FED92F1@news- 3.octanews.net:
>
>> BTW have you seen if it makes any difference to ... you know,
>> well, er, I mean, I'm just wondering, you know, er, um, em,
>> well to, em ... the user?
>>
> Me thinks you doth protest too much and listen too little. Of
> course I have said no browser crashes since it's use. If I never
> have another browser crash, could it be magic?
>
The Firefox developers are said to have plugged over 400 leaks when
going from Firefox 2 to Firefox 3.
A high memory usage (a memory hog) is quite different from a memory
leak (holding unwanted memory).
In Slashdot some time ago, poster SenseOfHumor writes:
"The Firefox memory leak is not a bug. It's a
feature! The 'feature' is how the pages are cached
in a tabbed environment."
From the article:
"To improve performance when navigating (studies
show that 39% of all page navigations are
renavigations to pages visited less than 10 pages
ago, usually using the back button), Firefox
implements a Back-Forward cache that retains the
rendered document for the last five session history
entries for each tab. This is a lot of data. If you
have a lot of tabs, Firefox's memory usage can climb
dramatically. It's a trade-off. What you get out of
it is faster performance as you navigate the web."
CleanMem isn't going to help with that.
If CleanMem made things better then maybe you took one of the many FF
updates that keep coming out.
This may be more effective for you ...
<http://internetducttape.com/2006/12/02/how-to-fix-the-firefox-
memory-leak-firefox-hack/> -OR- <http://is.gd/r08>
Franklin
in <news:Xns9B2DCFE511DBbe...@85.214.90.236>:
> Franklin <see_re...@home.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9B2DF04695F66D92F1@news- 3.octanews.net:
>
>>> You can call it goofing around, but it won't entice me to post
>>> links twice.
>>>
>>
>> No. Of course not. That would be a dangerous thing.
>>
> Danger is in the eye of the beholder...also beauty? One may
> consider beauty and be pleased. To consider danger when there is
> obviously none is drama.
>
Mr Bottoms,
That's a very interesting point and you use a very apposite
metaphor. The sublimation of beauty in comparison with danger may
be seen as the fantasy of cultural reproduction extrapolated from
an http link. The exposure improves danger on top of the
appearance of a 404.
In these matters of withholding hyperlinks, beauty desires an
active predecessor in its deference to ACF. Yet at the same time
the minor commentator on danger is aware of their own obvious
beauty which permits him to demence a vice focus all the way to
his own limit.
One could say that the gas always thinks it is below danger even
when nearby a zombie browser may be studying it's own failed
hyperlinks.
The breakdown of the relationship between the internal structures
of the hidden and the linguistic construction of self-referential
systems and Internet links flays the sacred cows of proof and
provability.
I'm sure you have already reached the same conclusion.
Franklin
Franklin
<news:142jay0isdoqy$.8ad672z1xmmg$.d...@40tude.net>:
Alvey, a cranium may leak its memory but your observation on the
relationship between the culture of empirical literalism and the
reintegration of animal images in pop culture is probably
fundamentally sound.
Franklin
alvey
Obviously. And especially in situations when X= a possum named Cyril.
Unless the train is a cucumber. Obviously.
alvey
Bear Bottoms
@news-3.octanews.net:
> On Sun 05 Oct08 02:23, Bear Bottoms <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote
> in <news:Xns9B2DCF660B698b...@85.214.90.236>:
>
>> Franklin <see_re...@home.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns9B2DF016CF9FED92F1@news- 3.octanews.net:
>>
>>> BTW have you seen if it makes any difference to ... you know,
>>> well, er, I mean, I'm just wondering, you know, er, um, em,
>>> well to, em ... the user?
>>>
>> Me thinks you doth protest too much and listen too little. Of
>> course I have said no browser crashes since it's use. If I never
>> have another browser crash, could it be magic?
>>
>
> The Firefox developers are said to have plugged over 400 leaks when
> going from Firefox 2 to Firefox 3.
Wow...400 eh. I wonder how many are still there...there they are.
>
> A high memory usage (a memory hog) is quite different from a memory
> leak (holding unwanted memory).
>
> In Slashdot some time ago, poster SenseOfHumor writes:
>
> "The Firefox memory leak is not a bug. It's a
> feature! The 'feature' is how the pages are cached
> in a tabbed environment."
>
> From the article:
> "To improve performance when navigating (studies
> show that 39% of all page navigations are
> renavigations to pages visited less than 10 pages
> ago, usually using the back button), Firefox
> implements a Back-Forward cache that retains the
> rendered document for the last five session history
> entries for each tab. This is a lot of data. If you
> have a lot of tabs, Firefox's memory usage can climb
> dramatically. It's a trade-off. What you get out of
> it is faster performance as you navigate the web."
>
> CleanMem isn't going to help with that.
>
If that bloated cache is erased, of course it will. As it hogs memory
with such caches, along with its leaks...the bloat causes issues.
CleanMem won't help with color schema either. Why are you talking and
hunting for things it won't help with?
> If CleanMem made things better then maybe you took one of the many FF
> updates that keep coming out.
Nope.
>
> This may be more effective for you ...
> <http://internetducttape.com/2006/12/02/how-to-fix-the-firefox-
> memory-leak-firefox-hack/> -OR- <http://is.gd/r08>
>
>
FF isn't the only program that leaks. Why search for a bunch of fixes
when CleanMem does it for every program? Besides, I thought you said
memory leakes were fixed in FF...why would you need a fix then?
hummingbird
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 04:55:04 +0100 'Franklin'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
Franklin, I don't know what all your bellyaching is about, apart
from irritating people and demonstrating your ability to lose
sight of the issue. FFS, CleanMem portable is a mere 36k and
requires no-install.
Try it, if it works: use it. If not: dump it. If you want to
exclude programs from its cleaning process, add them to the
cleanmem_ignore_list.txt file. I use it and find advantages.
It's really that easy.
--
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed,
and third, it is accepted as self-evident"
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
Franklin
in <news:Xns9B2E44DBF16ADb...@85.214.90.236>:
It's you who keeps wanting a fix for Firefox because you appear
convinced it leaks horribly.
Not only that but you have given the impression that CleanMem has
been FF3's salvation. I wonder who else (apart from Hummingbird)
finds CleanMem has "fixed" FF3?
Franklin
<news:Xns9B2E352...@news-3.octanews.net>:
In other words, Mr Bottoms, that was a nice attempt of yours at
deflecting the argument by posting garbage:
Bear Bottoms
1.octanews.net:
> I have repeatedly advocating using the utility if the user notices
> a benefit. I get no benefit from it. However Mr Bottoms wishes to
> refer to theoretical memeory leaks.
>
>
You are now being dishonest. Must I again start ignoring you? Memory leaks
are not theoretical...they are real. They cause program crashes and other
issues. CleanMem helps eliminate them because these issues come from memory
bloating eventually leading to crashes and other issues and
CleanMem...cleans the memory. I have not had a browser crash since I have
started using CleanMem. It is not an accident or a coincidence.
Bear Bottoms
1.octanews.net:
> In other words, Mr Bottoms, that was a nice attempt of yours at
> deflecting the argument by posting garbage:
>
Bye Franklin...once again. I may give you another shot in a few months.
Franklin
in <news:Xns9B2E89EB9EDF9b...@85.214.90.236>:
> Franklin <see_re...@home.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9B2EC39026522D92F1@news- 1.octanews.net:
>
>> I have repeatedly advocating using the utility if the user
>> notices a benefit. I get no benefit from it. However Mr
>> Bottoms wishes to refer to theoretical memeory leaks.
>>
>
> You are now being dishonest. Must I again start ignoring you?
What you do is your responsibility, not mine.
> Memory leaks are not theoretical...they are real. They cause
> program crashes and other issues. CleanMem helps eliminate them
> because these issues come from memory bloating eventually
> leading to crashes and other issues and CleanMem...cleans the
> memory. I have not had a browser crash since I have started
> using CleanMem. It is not an accident or a coincidence.
So you say. Let's leave it there.
Bear Bottoms
news:110f90aa-29de-4211...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 4, 2:43 pm, Franklin <see_reply...@home.com> wrote:
>> On Sat 04 Oct08 20:23, Bear Bottoms <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote
>> in <news:Xns9B2D9252F489be...@85.214.90.236>:
>>
>> > Franklin <see_reply...@home.com> wrote in
>> >news:Xns9B2DB37...@news-1.octanews.net:
>>
>> >> They were intended only for testing and not
>> >> for production use because WinXP already implements automatic
>> >> cleaning.
>>
>> > No it doesn't, or at least it does a poor job of managing memory
>> > leaks. I've witnessed it and it's results many times.
>>
>> I think all the following memory optimizers also claim to deal
>> with memory leaks just as ClearMem does. Like ClearMem they all
>> said they were new and radically different and better and greater
>> than anything else before them.
>>
>> They have all been argued over and in the end shown to have no
>> real effect.
>>
>> Perhaps you have come to this debate only recently and the
>> doomsayers seem persuasive but theirs is really the same old
>> argument.
>>
>> A few weeks ago we talked about clearing XP's Prefetch folder.
>>
>> These tweaks are myths and based on mythunderstandings (sic).
>>
>> Clean RAMhttp://nomorehistory.com/
>>
>> Free RAMhttp://www.yourwaresolutions.com/software.html
>>
>> Max RAM
>> Optimizerhttp://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/Max-RAM-Optimizer-
> Download-
>> 81746.html
>
> Odd I dont remember ever saying cleammem as radically different, I
> just put it out there for people to use.
>
> First off I never planned on making a memory cleaner. A year or so
> back I was playing around with VB .net to see if I wanted to upgrade
> to it from VB6. When I used .Net every time I minimized the program
> made in .net the memory of the process cleaned up like crazy
> automatically. I wanted to know how it does this, so after talking to
> a friend of mine who wrote a couple of books for MS on .net he told me
> the .net runtime files use the emptyworkingset API on the programs
> made in .Net by default. So I started looking into it and found the
> api and started using it in my own VB6 programs to clean up after
> themselves. After a while I made cleanmem for all my customers
> computers and cleanmem was running on over 200 computers before I
> released it on the net and not a single one of those systems ever ran
> out of memory cause all the processes where being kept in check. One
> of the key points MS pushes about .net apps is how they clean up there
> memory, I simply took that api and made it possible to use it on other
> processes. The virtual file, page file, everything doesn't get
> touched, I was amazed by the API. I wasnt about to put a so called
> memory cleaner on the net without doing my home work.
>
> Now in vista windows does use the api automatically but only when the
> system is completely out of memory and then it doesn't do the best of
> jobs on the timing. This API is what MS said why vista handles memory
> better (or at least thats what I was told, I didnt program vista so I
> dont know for sure)
>
> So far EVERY person who has done their homework and tested the crap
> out of cleanmem has confirmed it works, doesnt hurt the system in ANY
> way and they still have trouble believing it.
>
> Why doesn't MS have more info on the API? who the heck knows, its MS.
>
> Point is cleanmem is free, you don't want to use it then don't, I
> don't care, if you use it and find it useful good for you that's why
> its there.
>
> But I have been a programmer for about 10 years now, I know how the
> API works, and to this day the only reasoning behind the api call was
> to make .Net looking like a more efficient programming lang. cause it
> was better with memory, but in turn, turned out to be nothing more
> than a single API cleaning up the processes mess.
>
> Feel free to continue to bash cleanmem. Never seen so many people
> complain about a free app before, if I was asking money for it I could
> understand.
>
> But no matter what, no matter how well cleanmem works, or what MS says
> about the API, some people simply don't like to change their mind
> about things, and once you have it set that there is no such thing as
> a memory cleaner that works then you will never change your mind and
> I'm not going to fight to try and change it.
>
> -Shane
>
Shane, first of all...thank you for your generosity and CleanMem. It
works great. Ignore the many (though in reality it is just a few trolls)
denigrators in this group...it is not a nice place...especially for
authors of freeware. Saying that however, excludes the many people who
appreciate your generosity and I have found the program to contribute to
the health of my system. That it is free is only because of you. Thank
you.
Ari
> Shane, first of all. see the disclaimer below.
Bear Bottoms aka William "Bear" Bottoms (Google for more info) infamous
for his posting of *any* freeware regardless of its lack of development
as a means to draw attention to himself.
Bottoms claims to be a "freeware scientist", "a beta tester" and
a "security expert". He is none of these. He *is* a full blown,
dirt-dumb imbecile though.
William "Bear" Bottoms is devoid of integrity and is untrustworthy even
with his closest and most trusted friends.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4y6qqz
His attempted dominance of Alt.Comp.Freeware (ACF) is his only,
self-absorbed priority.
!!*BEWARE OF BEARWARE*!!
hummingbird
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:58:47 +0000 (UTC) 'Bear Bottoms'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
I second that.
abide.in...@gmail.com
> On Fri 03 Oct08 11:59, <abide.in.the.v...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <news:5c9496b5-4f06-43e5...@y79g2000hsa.googlegroups
> .com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 2, 9:07 pm, Franklin <see_reply...@home.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri 03 Oct08 00:47, <abide.in.the.v...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> <news:4ebf19d9-07af-420e...@h60g2000hsg.googlegro
> >> ups .com>:
>
> >> > [This is a repost of my first message to fix some typos,
> >> > especially one where I associated the wrong person with some
> >> > quotes. Lest anyone should be misrepresented I decided to
> >> > delete and repost my message with the fixes.]
>
> >> Delete?
>
> > Yes, I just deleted it. For some reason my posts were taking a
> > while to show after posting them, so I waited until the new one
> > showed before deleting the old one.
>
> You issued a cancel? Not all servers will honor cancels.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What do you mean? The posts have the option to delete them. What's the
problem?
Franklin
<news:110f90aa-29de-4211...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.
com>:
Hello Shane, nice to hear from you.
On http://www.majorgeeks.com/download5972.html you write:
"Other memory cleaners end up forcing the memory
into the page file slowing down your system. This
tool does not."
In other words, CleanMem is said to be different to all those other
memory cleaners.
> First off I never planned on making a memory cleaner. A year or
> so back I was playing around with VB .net to see if I wanted to
> upgrade to it from VB6. When I used .Net every time I minimized
> the program made in .net the memory of the process cleaned up
> like crazy automatically. I wanted to know how it does this, so
> after talking to a friend of mine who wrote a couple of books
> for MS on .net he told me the .net runtime files use the
> emptyworkingset API on the programs made in .Net by default. So
> I started looking into it and found the api and started using it
> in my own VB6 programs to clean up after themselves.
If .net needs to use it then why doesn't Microsoft say Windows XP
users should use it?
> After a
> while I made cleanmem for all my customers computers and
> cleanmem was running on over 200 computers before I released it
> on the net and not a single one of those systems ever ran out of
> memory cause all the processes where being kept in check.
My system never runs out of memory either. Is that because I don't
use a memory manager?
> One
> of the key points MS pushes about .net apps is how they clean up
> there memory, I simply took that api and made it possible to use
> it on other processes. The virtual file, page file, everything
> doesn't get touched, I was amazed by the API. I wasnt about to
> put a so called memory cleaner on the net without doing my home
> work.
>
> Now in vista windows does use the api automatically but only
> when the system is completely out of memory and then it doesn't
> do the best of jobs on the timing. This API is what MS said why
> vista handles memory better (or at least thats what I was told,
> I didnt program vista so I dont know for sure)
>
> So far EVERY person who has done their homework and tested the
> crap out of cleanmem has confirmed it works, doesnt hurt the
> system in ANY way and they still have trouble believing it.
On my PC it does nothing whatsoever that I am able to notice as a
user.
>
> Why doesn't MS have more info on the API? who the heck knows,
> its MS.
I find there is plenty enough Microsoft info about EmptyWorkingSet.
You say you have been programming for 10 years. Then for even longer
longer than you have been programming Microsoft has published info
about EmptyWorkingSet. For example, in 1996 it published this
lengthy discussion in its System Journal ....
http://www.microsoft.com/msj/archive/S2058.aspx
Before XP was even launched, "Wayne" posted his test code
http://www.powerbasic.com/support/forums/Forum4/HTML/003497.html
A few years ago "Oliver2" posted some trial code
http://www.codeguru.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=327320
Last year, Richard wrote a tutorial showing how to run perf counters
to force a situation to see the effect of EmptyWorkingSet.
>
> Point is cleanmem is free, you don't want to use it then don't,
> I don't care, if you use it and find it useful good for you
> that's why its there.
>
Good idea. Well said.
And we have all read the caveat posted by Lubarsky:
http://blogs.x2line.com/al/archive/2008/04/20/3394.aspx
> But I have been a programmer for about 10 years now, I know how
> the API works, and to this day the only reasoning behind the api
> call was to make .Net looking like a more efficient programming
> lang. cause it was better with memory, but in turn, turned out
> to be nothing more than a single API cleaning up the processes
> mess.
>
> Feel free to continue to bash cleanmem. Never seen so many
> people complain about a free app before, if I was asking money
> for it I could understand.
It's not CleanMem that's the issue, it's the claims which Bottoms and
Hummingbird make which have caused dissention. Happens all the time.
Sorry to see you getting caught up in the mess they created.
> But no matter what, no matter how well cleanmem works, or what
> MS says about the API, some people simply don't like to change
> their mind about things, and once you have it set that there is
> no such thing as a memory cleaner that works then you will never
> change your mind and I'm not going to fight to try and change
> it.
>
> -Shane
BTW how does CleanMem differ from SweepRAM?
http://88.191.26.34/computers_are_fun/sweepram/
Seems that "f0dder" and his colleagues disagree with your approach to
managing memory ...
<http://www.donationcoder.com/Forums/bb/index.php?topic=
14487.msg125261>
abide.in...@gmail.com
and
Hummingbird make which have caused dissention. Happens all the
time.
Franklin
Personally, I found Bottoms' and Hummingbird's posts to be some of the
most sensible on this thread. I have seen a lot of posts here that
would cause dissention, I do not think their's were the ones however.
smc1979
>
> A few years ago "Oliver2" posted some trial codehttp://www.codeguru.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=327320
>
> Seems that "f0dder" and his colleagues disagree with your approach to
> managing memory ...
>
> <http://www.donationcoder.com/Forums/bb/index.php?topic=
> 14487.msg125261>
Very odd to see http://www.microsoft.com/msj/archive/S2058.aspx
Nov 1996? Strange the web site on MS says the api is for windows 2000
and above, but this article clearly shows it was even in NT. ( I love
learning new stuff, its what makes me a good programmer and tech)
I did try the SetProcessWorkingSetSize -1 trick when I first started
playing around with cleanmem and my other programs, it did work but I
noticed the pagefile would grow a little, so I dumped it. When I
tested with emptyworkingset the page file didnt budge.
On the other pages the API has been known and been around for years as
you see. But no one tried to do what I did with cleanmem, know why?
cause normally when you call the api it fails cause of permissions, I
have to ask windows for debugger permissions per process which is
granted then cleanmem can call the api without failing on most
processes, this is why Toad who felt he could make a cleanmem clone
most likely failed and why his didnt clean as much.
on http://www.majorgeeks.com/download5972.html Tim at major geeks made
me right something out to help push cleanmem. In fact majorgeeks hasnt
put a memory cleaner on there site for years except for mine, and only
cause they tested it and found it to work. That was a proud day for me
lol.
Back to http://www.microsoft.com/msj/archive/S2058.aspx I wonder if MS
beefed up the API with .Net and maybe why it works so well now. So far
I have only seen what cleanmem does on Xp and above, not on nt or
2000. Since I didnt write the API I only know from what I researched
and tested. I would LOVE to talk to the people who made the API and
truly find out how it works, but I dont see that happening.
on "If .net needs to use it then why doesn't Microsoft say Windows XP
users should use it? " the call is from the .Net runtimes. All
programs made in .net need the run times, and the programs clean
themselves up. Why MS doesnt push the api or something like it isnt to
surprising. First think of it this way, Microsoft knows how to clean
up memory, it does it itself, would be kinda strange not to have a api
to call to clean it up yourself. But if MS cleaned all processes of
memory all the time programming quality would go down the tubes
because no programmers would care or worry about memory and memory
leaks. Feels like a trade off, MS left the memory up to the
programmers and only steps in when it has to.
On my system I have 4gb of ram, I never run out of memory either, but
that all depends on what apps you are running and what things are
installed and hooked into windows, even drivers. Some systems suffer
from memory leaks others dont. Cleanmem doesnt fix leaks it simply
cleans them up, sort of like a dripping pipe, its basically cleaning
up the mess every so often, but the mess always comes back. Thus why
it is up to the programmers to keep thing running smooth. But with a
OS that even leaks it self at times there is no perfect program out
there with memory.
I dont know how the API works with emptyworkingset behind the closed
doors, I just know it does, MS made it and it works.
But I also include the exclude list and clean only list. I have people
who use it in there windows 2003 farms, hundreds of servers, they had
some with some server software they use that would suck the memory dry
after a few weeks and now with cleanmem the problem is completely gone
as they get cleaned up. So cleanmem has earned its right (I hope) as a
useful tool, As a replacement for windows memory handling? you cant
replace what windows does, in fact cleanmem is just asking windows to
do what it does more often.
Right now I am working hard getting all these new routers added to the
site, and I do love a good debate. I can only defend the API by what
everyone else sees on the net and from actually using it, other than
that I dont know what to say. But for me I have a lot of customers
still on windows xp 1gb or less of ram (some use autocad) and there
memory use to get sucked dry thanks to apps like autocad, they no
longer ever have that problem, so for me the tool does what I want. I
hope it can do it for others to.
Take care all, time for me to get back to work.
-Shane
Bear Bottoms
news:d35e0d86-c009-4014...@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
Thanks for the information Shane. All I know is what I've seen it
do...and it does what you say it does. It is useful.
abide.in...@gmail.com
> Franklin <see_reply...@home.com> wrote in news:Xns9B2E32073FCB2D92F1
> @news-3.octanews.net:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun 05 Oct08 02:23, Bear Bottoms <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote
> > in <news:Xns9B2DCF660B698b...@85.214.90.236>:
>
> >> Franklin <see_reply...@home.com> wrote in
> >>news:Xns9B2DF01...@news-3.octanews.net:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey Bear Bottoms, I just wanted to reply to the last thing you said in
this post. You said, "Why search for a bunch of fixes when CleanMem
does it for every program?"
As Shane said in his last post (and I said in my first post), CleanMem/
EmptyWorkingSet does not fix memory leaks, it only cleans up after
them. So in reality, CleanMem is not fixing the underlying cause, but
it is remedying it. It's like Shane said, suppose you had a leaky
pipe. You can either clean up the leak or fix the pipe. Of course,
fixing the pipe is the best way to go, and it's great to see
programmers fixing memory leaks (like Firefox having 400 or so memory
leaks fixed). It's best to not have the memory leaks to begin with.
But, of course, there are many programs out there that have memory
leaks, and until we can trust that the programmers have completely
taken care of them so we don't have to worry about cleaning up after
them.
Let's think about it another way. Do we need antivirus software? Yes.
Why? Because their are computer viruses out there. Wouldn't it be the
best thing to just have no viruses and drop the antivirus altogether?
Sure would save alot of resources. But, the fact is we have computer
viruses, and we have memory leaks, so until we can have all the memory
leaks completely fixed in every program out there and all the viruses
completely eradicated, I think it's certainly a good idea to run
programs that can clean up viruses and clean up memory leaks.
And I think what you were trying to get at with your quote is simply
that most users don't want to have to do all the research themselves
and find fixes for all the known memory leaks when they'd much rather
install a program to clean up the leaks for them. I just wantd to make
the point that it's still good to keep a system up to date with fixes
to try and keep the memory leaks from occuring to begin with, even
when running CleanMem.
Ari
wrote:
I have some helpful information for you.
There are exactly two categories of people who might read any
article you post. The first group comprises those who know you're
a liar, an immature asswipe, a fraud and an idiot. The second includes
only those who have never heard of you. If you want to maintain
as good an image as possible, don't ever post again. Your lies
and incoherent nonsense just give the first group an opportunity
to laugh at you, and any of the second group who see that crap
will immediately migrate to the first.
So your best bet is to shut the fuck up.
abide.in...@gmail.com
> On Mon 06 Oct08 01:57, <abide.in.the.v...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <news:19cf5bac-754c-4b49...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.
> com>:
You are implying two things here:
1) I either know in person, or am connected with Bear Bottoms and/or
Hummingbird.
&
2) I am defending them because I am mentally incapable (or unwilling)
to think for myself and come to my own conclusions, therefore they
dictate to me what to do and therefore I defend them because I have no
say nor choice in the matter.
Both of the implications/assumptions are false. First, I know neither
Bear Bottoms nor Hummingbird except from meeting them online here on
this thread. I have had no interactions with either of them except
what you have seen taken place on this thread. Secondly, I defended
them because you insulted there integrity which I disagreed with, and
I am currently (for the most part) in the same persuasion as they are
concerning CleanMem.
There is only one person on this thread that I have had interactions
with, which most have taken place only recently, and that is Shane the
programmer of CleanMem. I have never met Shane in person, I helped him
do some testing to fix a bug in his CS Fire Monitor, and have since
been trying some of his programs and seeing how they work. So far, CS
Fire Monitor and CleanMem are on my own personal list of recommended
programs because I like how they work and I use them personally.
abide.in...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 17:57:07 -0700 (PDT), abide.in.the.v...@gmail.com
Ari, with all due respect, I have refrained from responding to the
temptation to reply to your messages because, quite frankly, there was
nothing substantial in them to reply to. But since you've responded to
me more than once I thought I should give you my response and leave it
at that.
Your posts seemed to be filled with little more than cussing people
out and name calling. When you begin to sound somewhat sensible in
your post with some information that may actually be useful for
something, you ruin it by ending it it name calling. When you appear
to be replying to a point with your answer, you simply reply, "No"
with no qualifications whatsoever. When someone posts a useful message
you act like you cannot swallow the information and choke it up with
some nonsensical "Troll for the Bear and Milbankshomo on your time,
not mine" (which if anyone on here actually know what on earth that is
suppose to mean, I would appreciate the explanation of it).
You complain because of "NewBoi"s posting messages, yet they have
shown more maturity than you who has apparently been on these forums
for some time. While we would hope that age would determine wisdom,
this is not always the case. In fact, someone who is new to these
forums might have far more knowledge and wisdom that one who has been
here for a long time. Or it could be the other way around. But your
posts have clearly revealed (I think) that in your case you lack the
maturity that some others here possess. Even those whom I would
disagree with have sometimes had good and honest posts, but I have yet
to find anything actually constructive in what you have said. I would
say your brief "You don't know how, you have no testing parameters but
you think it is because it eliminates program leaks" sounds like it is
almost constructive but ends up in insulting someone instead of
actually helping them do something better. Or your post about where
CleanMem puts memory once it's cleaned up - this almost sounds good,
and to a certain extent does ask some good questions, but again is
filled with insulting and ends up misunderstanding and misrepresenting
how CleanMem actually works, therefore is not helpful.
I clicked on one of your links which came up dead. I thought it was
dead until I checked ZoneAlarm's Spy Site Blocking - turns out this
had blocked it as a bad site (only site on ZA's block list so far).
Your comment right after this link was complaining about someone being
self-absorbed, yet you have done nothing but belittle and insult
people thinking it makes yourself look good while in fact this is
making you look like a fool who has no idea what they are talking
about. Evidence for this is the fact that I have yet to see a single
post by you that has been rated more than one star.
I have little doubt that you will get frustrated with this post and
reply with some other nonsense such as name calling or cuss me out.
Seeing your pattern of posts, this would not surprise me. If you could
only take something I said and show me with facts and evidence what I
said was wrong, then you might actually make some grounds for
convincing me about something. By your standard, I should not have
taken this long a time to explain to you what is wrong, but just
thrown a few insults at you that have zero qualifications whatsoever
and expect you to actually listen to me. I don't know, maybe that your
language. Maybe if I cussed right now you'd actually think, "Oh!
That's my language! I understand that! Now we can relate!" but only it
wouldn't so sensible, it's probably have a bunch of asterisks and
other odd characters. Or, what's more likely, you'd probably play the
part of an hypocrite and get all offended and just hurl more curses
back at me. Responding to you or not responding to you would probably
make little difference, I doubt that unless God intervenes this
message will have any good impact on you whatsoever.
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto
him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own
conceit." - Proverbs 26:4-5
abide.in...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think you're mistaking me for the person in the mirror your looking
at.
Bear Bottoms
9e6099...@v28g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
> Hey Bear Bottoms, I just wanted to reply to the last thing you said in
> this post. You said, "Why search for a bunch of fixes when CleanMem
> does it for every program?"
>
I understand. You misunderstand me. I'm not saying it is a permanent fix,
as in repair the leaks. It is a fix in that it helps control them.
Ari
wrote:
>> Those comments suggest you might be someone's sockpuppet.
>
> You are implying two things here:
>
> 1) I either know in person, or am connected with Bear Bottoms and/or
> Hummingbird.
>
> &
>
> 2) I am defending them because I am mentally incapable (or unwilling)
> to think for myself and come to my own conclusions, therefore they
> dictate to me what to do and therefore I defend them because I have no
> say nor choice in the matter.
>
> Both of the implications/assumptions are false. First, I know neither
> Bear Bottoms nor Hummingbird except from meeting them online here on
> this thread. I have had no interactions with either of them except
> what you have seen taken place on this thread. Secondly, I defended
> them because you insulted there integrity which I disagreed with
SOCK PUPPET!!!!
Ari
wrote:
>> I have some helpful information for you.
>>
>> There are exactly two categories of people who might read any
>> article you post. The first group comprises those who know you're
>> a liar, an immature asswipe, a fraud and an idiot. The second includes
>> only those who have never heard of you. If you want to maintain
>> as good an image as possible, don't ever post again. Your lies
>> and incoherent nonsense just give the first group an opportunity
>> to laugh at you, and any of the second group who see that crap
>> will immediately migrate to the first.
>>
>> So your best bet is to shut the fuck up.
>
> Ari, with all due respect, I have refrained from responding to the
> temptation to reply to your messages because, quite frankly, there was
> nothing substantial in them to reply to.
Then STFU.
See how that works, sock puppet?
Ari
wrote:
> Ari, with all due respect,
<snipped unknown amount of bullshit>
Clue:
I don't read asshole output, sock puppet and I surely don't read eons of
typing/lecturing from anyone who believes Boor Buttthole and his
beak-in-butt friend humminhomo. may I inform?
abide.in...@gmail.com
> 9e60994cb...@v28g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Hey Bear Bottoms, I just wanted to reply to the last thing you said in
> > this post. You said, "Why search for a bunch of fixes when CleanMem
> > does it for every program?"
>
> I understand. You misunderstand me. I'm not saying it is a permanent fix,
> as in repair the leaks. It is a fix in that it helps control them.
>
> --
> Bear Bottoms
> Freeware website:http://bearware.info
Yes, I realize that. I guess I just wanted to clarify that.
abide.in...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 19:55:40 -0700 (PDT), abide.in.the.v...@gmail.com
Thanks for proving my point.
Ari
wrote:
Thanks for re-posting the *BEWARE OF BAREWARE* DISCLAIMER. LOL
Not real bright are you, 2 watt?
--
Bear Bottoms
news:9dd64a45-ad08-425f...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
Clarifications are good :) Thanks.
B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson
> On the other pages the API has been known and been around for years as
> you see. But no one tried to do what I did with cleanmem, know why?
> cause normally when you call the api it fails cause of permissions, I
> have to ask windows for debugger permissions per process which is
> granted then cleanmem can call the api without failing on most
> processes, this is why Toad who felt he could make a cleanmem clone
> most likely failed and why his didnt clean as much.
I thought this would be the case, but since I didn't download his
program, I couldn't be sure. But I don't think, the need for changing
permissions (documented in the function reference, IIRC) is the
cause, that everybody writes/uses such tools, by now. IMHO, the
MS memory managers usually do a very good job. If they don't clean
memory early on a specific machine, it usually is, because physical
memory isn't sparse. (Some kind of caching.) And if available memory
gets low, only the *really* necessary amount of pages gets freed.
> on "If .net needs to use it then why doesn't Microsoft say Windows XP
> users should use it? " the call is from the .Net runtimes. All
> programs made in .net need the run times, and the programs clean
> themselves up. Why MS doesnt push the api or something like it isnt to
> surprising.
The special cleaning combined with .NET, has probably several reasons.
One being the use of different versions for libraries by different
running programs, which would make .NET programs resource hogs without
special precautions...
> I dont know how the API works with emptyworkingset behind the closed
> doors, I just know it does, MS made it and it works.
It uses an "undocumented and unsupported" interface. (Who would have
guessed...) ;-)
Look here for the ReactOS implementation, which comes really near to
the stuff contained in psapi.dll:
www.reactos.org/generated/doxygen/db/d83/psapi_8c-source.html#l00632
I don't know, which debugger you use. But if it supports loading debug
symbols from Microsoft's servers, you may give a checked build of
psapi.dll a go inside it.
Btw.: Could you please snip parts of the postings you cite, if they
are not important to understand your reasoning? - Thank you! :-)
BeAr
--
===========================================================================
= What do you mean with: "Perfection is always an illusion"? =
===============================================================--(Oops!)===