Memory low problem --- are all RAM cleaners really 'snake oil'?

Mark Russinovich said:

Fraudware
I have yet to see a RAM optimizer that lives up to any of its claims. ... common sense suggests that if RAM optimization were possible (and could be implemented by so many small-time upstarts), Microsoft developers would have long since integrated the technology into the kernel.

The Memory-Optimization Hoax - RAM optimizers make false promises

Mark Eugene Russinovich (born c. 1966) is CTO of Microsoft Azure. He was a cofounder of software producers Winternals before it was acquired by Microsoft in 2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich

simrick said:

A bit rude and unnecessary, don't you think?

no it's wasn't considering i'm being told i don't know what i'm talking about when i damn well do.

ChaChaLaBoom said:

i'm being told i don't know what i'm talking about when i damn well do.

So you're saying the Chief Technology Officer of Microsoft Azure doesn't know what he's talking about? Interesting...

I hadn't intended to post again in this thread but there are things that need to be addressed.

The article by Mark Russinovich linked to above is still very much relevant in 2017. While there have been many changes in memory management since the first release of NT in 1993 they have been evolutionary, not revolutionary in nature. The basic concepts have changed but little. The basic concepts described in "Inside Windows 2000", Third edition are the same as those described in "Windows Internals" Sixth edition. I have read both. The differences are in the details and enhancements found in later operating systems. The original version of NT in 1993 had a minimum RAM requirement of 12 MB (which many thought excessive). There simply wasn't room for the advanced features found in later systems. Windows 10 has a minimum requirement of 1 GB for the 32 bit version and that has made all these features possible.

I really have no issue with memory cleaning, only when it is done by third party products. Windows actually has a memory cleaner and has since the first release of NT. But there is nothing to download or install and no user interface to show it's activity or for configuration. It is built right into the OS where it belongs and works silently and efficiently for the benefit of both system and application processes. This is as it should be. Memory is a shared resource and needs to be centrally managed. Resource management being one of the primary functions of the OS.

There is no configuration because the real experts readily recognize that they could not possibly do better than the system does on it's own. That being the case, what hope do the rest of us have?

The problem is that the memory manager works according to advanced principles which are poorly understood by most computer users. In fact many computer professionals lack even a basic understanding. It is the same for any modern OS, not just Windows. And to make matters worse the user level documentation by Microsoft often serves more to confuse than enlighten. No wonder the numbers in Task Manager are often confusing and problems are perceived when none actually exist. I have seen this so many times.

The system memory manager and memory cleaner has access to a great deal of information to facilitate efficient operation. It exercises either fine or gross control as the situation requires. This information and the means of exercising control is not available outside the OS or to third party cleaners. Third party memory cleaners must resort to a crude sledgehammer approach. It gets the job done but causes a great deal of damage in the process. The results are not pretty. They are particularly damaging in low memory systems where it is important that the system memory manager is allowed to work as designed

Memory cleaners are not sophisticated software. In most cases the most complex part is the GUI and that is usually quite basic.

These third party memory cleaners are a pet hate of mine, even more so than registry cleaners.

Disagree with me if you wish. But I am in good company.