Sorry, I didn't mean to question your veracity. I believe you when you
say your system performs better after you've run "program accelerator".
I just don't understand how it can do what it claims to do since I
don't think even the OS knows how to do that. I need to do some further
checking on Windows memory management. The implication is that orphaned
memory is somehow tagged with the process it belonged to. I'd like to
know if that's true and if not I'm even further mystified.
Chuck Norcutt
(old orphaned memory chaser... who once had 20 IBM and Microsoft
programmers working for 6 weeks to find and fix a memory leak)
On 8/15/2012 5:03 PM, Moose wrote:
> On 8/15/2012 5:42 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> I'm glad this stuff seems to work for you but have a hard time believing
>> that the "program accelerator" makes much of a difference
>
> I was careful to say that I have no way of knowing how well it may work, I
> don't have comparison systems and don't time
> programs before and after. I run it once in a while, and consider it a
> prophylactic measure unlikely to cause any harm.
>
>> assuming that the hard drive was not already badly defragmented when the
>> software was installed.
>
> For whom is this a realistic assumption? My poor little 250GB primary drive
> has had endless software installed,
> uninstalled, updated, etc. and has become so full occasionally that Windoze
> has warned me and/or a program has said
> there is not enough room for it's cache or to save a file.
>
> Camera files are on an internal 1.5 TB drive, files from scanning on an
> external 500 GB drive, video, music and ebook
> files on yet another 500 GB drive* - and still the primary drive gets full.
> :-)
>
>> I'm impressed with "memory mechanic" if it does as you claim.
>
> The 'if' is interesting. I assure you my reporting is an accurate reflection
> of experience repeated many times.
>
>> I certainly understand memory leaks but don't know how it can locate and
>> relate lost memory to a particular process.
>
> I have no idea how it does so.
>
>> It would seem that the OS should have done the same when the process ended.
>
> The world is, and has been, at least since the advent of written records,
> full of people, institutions and processes
> (human, mechanical and electronic) that "should have done" many many things -
> but didn't, or did them poorly.
>
> All I can say is that on my system (32 bit, 3 GB available to Winzdoze and
> programs) PS, after intensive use, starts
> really slowing down. Things that just 'happened' start popping up the green
> snake progress bar and things that had a
> relatively speedy green snake get slower and sloooower. Close PS, run MM,
> open PS, and all is normal again.
>
> My report is entirely experiential, no theory. Any theory that disagrees is
> wrong. :-)
>
> Drive Crazy Moose
>
> * Then there are the backup drives...
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|