What is Digg?142 Comments
- aaronm67, on 10/12/2007, -5/+110...you don't have to clear memory in windows. In fact, if you use this, you're incredibly stupid. There's a reason things are put in memory.
EDIT: Man, you guys reply fast. - MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+93People. Please don't do this. It wasn't meant to be used like this....you're just going to slow down your computer for the satisfaction of your 'free memory' meter showing 1 or 2 percent more. If, at any given moment, you have free memory, remember that it is _wasted_ memory. It just shows that the OS could be using that free memory to improve it's own speed, but isn't. Free memory is the enemy of speed.
- DKasler, on 10/12/2007, -5/+83...of warcraft
- rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -6/+74THIS DOES NOT CLEAR YOUR MEMORY!
It just clears unallocated memory... It's a fundamental in computing; programs (whether they are running on XP, OS X, *nix) need to unallocate memory when they are finished with it... When they don't, thats when you get memory leaks. This shortcut will just clear _unallocated_ memory.
Don't go bashing XP because it has an option to clear unallocated memory... (theres probably an option in OS X to do it)
Btw, Mac fanboys that have commented on this FEATURE in XP, you are really showing your intelligence. Everyone that diggs Nahor up obviously has no clue what is actually happening when you hit that button. - DRTED, on 10/12/2007, -7/+70When I tried it, I was playing WARCRAFT at the same time, and all my orcs forgot where they were going due to their memory being erased. So I pushed my computer off the desk.
- whereisian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+62http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx#EFF
This does not clear memory per se. It forces system tasks that are waiting for the system to go idle to execute.
From the article "The APIs sole purpose is to allow benchmarks a simple way to force any pending idle tasks to be executed immediately."
When I tried it, my cpu usage spiked for about a minute while it ran those pending tasks and then I acutally had a hundred less KB free - no big whoop. Marked as inaccurate. - pipdip, on 10/12/2007, -8/+69"The fact that you have to "clear your memory" manually with windows doesn't bother anyone?"
No it doesn't, because you don't have to, in fact you shouldn't. Have the feeling to bash Windows or something? - grevvvvvv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+56There is a reason why ***** is cached in memory, it's so that it can run faster. "Clearing" and "freeing" are complete ***** terms.
- CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -13/+67You don't HAVE to. I do not.
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -3/+56Thanks. That video is unnecesary, especially in YouTube quality. Who uses YouTube quality video when you need to read TEXT?!
Geezuz, for tutorials, a step by step guide beats a video anyday. This goes double for you Photoshop egomaniacs!! - Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -29/+76Why wouldn't you just buy more memory?
I have yet to see XP use all 2 Gigs I have installed - it cost me about $80 to upgrade.
I don't have to click anything and my PC purrs along fine all the time. - Nahor, on 10/12/2007, -106/+152The fact that you have to "clear your memory" manually with windows doesn't bother anyone?
- jacobo, on 10/12/2007, -13/+55create a desktop shortcut
%windir%system32rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks
name it: anynameyouwant
click it - MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29Actually they are. The big 'memory leak' improves the speed of going back and forth between pages in history.....I'm sure there are more memory leaks that contribute to wasting memory with no gain. But the big one does indeed improve speed.
- digital, on 10/12/2007, -18/+46"inaccurate title...double click"
-idiot digg user - wabbiteh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Actually, he put it into the quick launch bar -- creating a single-click button.
- h0dg3s, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25here's an easier way. create a shortcut in your quicklaunch bar
shutdown /r /f /t 0
memory cleared. - distrbnce, on 10/12/2007, -8/+29Web 2.0, dawg!! Get with the times!
- trunkster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Was anyone else expecting him to type something like "format C:, and all your memory will be gone" That guy's voice cannot be taken seriously.
- merlinicorpus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Total BS. At best you could recover a few hundred kb by this, and the result of pushing all those pending tasks through is probably going to slow the machine down considerably. Why do people with no flipping clue make videos like this? Marked as inaccurate.
- garf12, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21Dont you need a / in there. %windir%system32/rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks ?
- pvtjohndoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15I tried this also but it's something that I won't try again. My CPU usage shot up for a minute or so and about 150MB of RAM was freed. But...the second I went back to Firefox, that 150MB was gone again.
- catchneyez, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Guys, please don't put things on here that will screw up someone's computer. Although some of us know what not to do, there are people that don't know and would actually try some of those commands.
Digg is growing, it's not just for the tech-savy people anymore. - Xeth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13At least this isn't one of those programs that "optimize" your memory by allocating as much physical memory as possible and then exiting...
- lozaning, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14man that worked wonders for me: my memory was 100% clear after that
- w3rtx2, on 10/12/2007, -12/+23OMG it's the end of the WORLD!!
- DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Yeah, I'd say Slashdot actually has a smarter audience, you guys are morons.
- rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10note above: edit time got me.
%windir%\system32\rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks - treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Yep it should be:
%windir%*system32*rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks
Replace * with a backslash - Ebeniz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14I have my Xp setup as single click... so what's your problem?
- fickerra, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14@rompom7
Do you understand the feature? Then please tell me, what do you mean by "clear" unallocated memory?
Unallocated memory is, by definition, not being used. Therefore it's value does not matter. By clearing it, do you mean setting it to zero? If so, what possibile benefit could that provide? None other than mental in the heads of the users.
Any application that would allocate that memory will set it to a value meaningful to that application. It doesn't care if it's "clear" before it gets it. - ColdCut, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Trying to make money from Metacafe by exploiting Digg's community base much?
- kcpwnsgman, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18"Those aren't bugs, they're features!"
- pcgeek101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx#EFF
"The file placement optimization, which is done no more often than once every three days, is an example of a task that is carried out when the system is deemed to be idle. System Restore and other features of Windows XP also attempt to defer some work until the system is deemed to be idle. There are also some done-once-after-setup work items that also operate under the Idle Task Scheduling mechanisms."
That says enough. This method in this particular DLL does nothing more than forcing the system to believe that it's idle and can take care of the tasks that XP does in the background such as file placement optimization (prefetch I think?). This has absolutely NOTHING to do with memory optimization. - Shorties, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11try system64 instead of 32 (Not sure if that is true just a guess)
- Somniis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11People are morons...
Memory is meant to be taken up. If you need to clear it at all, then you need to buy more. - MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7System32 is the 64 bit path for windows. Syswow64 contains the 32 bit executables. (wow = windows on windows emulator for 32 bit stuff.)
In any case, the fact that this doesn't work is a good thing. never, never, never, ever do this. - MasteRR, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Please bury this crap. It doesn't help any, and actually will make your computer perform worse!
Get this inaccurate story off the front page! Undigg if you dugg. - NapoleonGold, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Thank you Digg Commentators
&
Thank you Cathcneyez,
Quotes and such,
"Guys, please don't put things on here that will screw up someone's computer. Although some of us know what not to do, there are people that don't know and would actually try some of those commands.
Digg is growing, it's not just for the tech-savy people anymore." Catchneyez
Thank you for standing up for us newbies, in fact I think people such as myself (without a sufficient understanding of the intricacies of relationships between software and hardware. Without the knowledge of who loves who and what animosities may exist within the group underneath my keyboard as my fan hums away.) an observer, who came to digg to get tips and tricks for my baby and become better informed of the views of those more skilled in the art of computing.
To date the best advice of any tip or trick has been you guys in the comment section. I have never used a tip or trick in Digg without referring to those that are the most passionate about computing; those in the comment section.
Through the comment section I have learned more about what interacts with whom in a computer environment then any class I could have ever taken.
I just wanted to give you guys some credit for being so dedicated to what you love. Debunking or re bunking good ol' fashion computing.
Thanks guys,
I hope this site stays the same with more non-partisan tech advise.
NGold - chasebase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You don't have to clear the memory. Lot's of dorks think they can beat operating systems at memory management, and 99% of them know just enough to be dangerous (at best) and certainly won't improve on Windows' memory management.
This reminds me of a tip Lifehacker posted that was supposedly going to speed up boot times. Not only did it not work, it screwed up a number of machines. - h0dg3s, on 10/12/2007, -26/+32"The fact that you have to "clear your memory" manually with windows doesn't bother anyone?"
I don't "clear my memory", and I only reboot every week or two and I have no problems. Buy more ram or install XP instead of 95/98.
If you're too dumb to do that, follow suit from everyone else who's too dumb to do that and buy a Mac. - Matataki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I dunno, anybody stupid enough to ignore the context of the above conversation kind of deserves whatever they get if they start blindly pasting what people write.
Tech savvy is quite different from stupidity. - statikuz, on 10/12/2007, -17/+21Thank you for shopping Kwik-E-Mart...
- cyberghost232, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Actually doing this will slow the system down. It will take longer to cache what was deleted than to just leave it alone. I really dont see the point.
- MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Your computer's personal tubes must just be clogged.
- senfo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@rompom7, that's not right. It does not clear unallocated memory. It's a way to force the OS to process idle requests that are waiting for the system to be idle before running. It could, for example, force garbage collection to run; but, it's likely more complicated than that.
Windows XP runs this automatically no more than once every three days. - marthaphoebe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4recover RAM by closing unused/unneeded windows and apps.
- jobo5432, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Memory suffers from the same storage problems that a hard disk does: it fragments.
If you're not sure what fragmenting is it's when a file is saved to the hard drive, it tries to keep everything in the same location (or cluster) Over the course of time files will be deleted, leaving blank areas between files. If you install another large program, the hard drive tries to fill the holes, thus breaking up the program storage block. The same is true for memory, except we're loading programs into memory, not saving files. Performance is seriously taxed for a few reasons (we'll just talk memory here):
1. When an app is loaded into memory, it finds open spaces, which disjoins the application. When a certain part of the application is requested, it has to find the spot in memory where that part of the app is stored.
2. If a chunk of the app is too big to be stored in any available gap in memory, it's stored in "virtual memory" or "swap space", which is a special part of your HD which is given to the memory manager portion of the OS. Accessing data on a hard disk is roughly 1000x slower or more than accessing data from memory, so any application which has a majority itself stored in swap or virtual space will load 1000x slower than one that doesn't.
When I was in college we wrote an operating system as a semester-long class (yes we had TONS of help from the profs - 15 weeks isn't long enough to make anything close to robust). Managing memory and optimizing memory and storage were definitely the hardest parts of the OS, however it's the most fundamental. Whether you're a Unix/Linux, OS X, or Windows fan, rest assured that the folks who developed your favorite OS used the most optimized memory access/management methods available. Don't mess with it. - hypercube33, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Thank god for people like you who actually can do 'research'
- xyphur, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If you're running out of RAM, buy more... if you're unsatisfied with the speed of your RAM, but haven't used 100% of the installed amount, buy *faster* RAM. If the latter is impossible on your current setup because you're already running the fastest RAM your board will support, it's obvious that you are no longer satisfied with the maximum capabilities of your machine, and thus require a complete upgrade. Simple stuff really... And it is true that free memory does not equate to more speed... it is the opposite. The less memory your machine is using, the slower it is doing things (bona-fide application memory leaks notwithstanding).
In short: Quit ur bitchin' and plop down ur cash. It costs money to go fast. -
Show 51 - 100 of 136 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is