Any need for Cacheman XP

I have used Cacheman since it was invented and still use it on XP. I was reading a gaming forum that said some memory managers slow games down at times. I have 2 gig of memory and a 3.2 intel processor, do I really need Cacheman XP any longer?

 

I'd run a benchmark. With and without cachemanXP.

Personally, with 2gigs of ram. I see no need of it. Typically, these so called memory tweaking programs, only help those with very low memory. Like 256 megs or less. IMHO.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

If Cacheman XP operates the same way as FreeRam XP Pro, on a PC with 2 gigs of RAM, it probably is never forced into action.

I am not a gamer but still use FreeRam XP Pro on my XP Pro, with 2 gigs RAM.

Whether Cacheman XP activates, or not, would depend on how much RAM your games use, in realtime. Usually cache memory type programs have a minimum limit (of free RAM left--depending on program defaults, or default limits you have set) that programs (games, OS, etc.) have to fall to before they activate.

Does Cacheman XP have an indicator, down by the time, that shows how much free RAM there is, in realtime?
What free RAM number does it show before you start your game /s?
How much does this fall by, when you play your games?
What are the "trigger" defaults that are set (or you have set) in Cacheman XP?

XP manages free RAM a lot better than earlier OS's, but I still run my memory manager.
I run it manually when I want to free all RAM after logging off the net, and closing down lots of running processes, for example.

It is also a good visual aid to see if something is suddenly hogging RAM, for some reason, and the usual numbers fluctuate wildly.

As suggested earlier, try benchmark tests with, and without, Cacheman XP installed.

With 2 gigs of RAM, logged onto MG, XP Pro with SP2, etc., and lots of processes running, I usually have around 1.6 gigs (1600megs) free, as a guide for you.

Bazza

===

 

If I want to check to see if something is hogging my ram, I just use taskmgr, within the processes, then the view menu, then "select columns". Then I check pagefile usage.

In vista, I use, Peak Working set, memory private working set, paged pool, page faults, and command line, with a few others.

 

Thanks for the tips. I haven't noticed any difference either way. Might run some benchmarks..With 2 gigs like you said, it probably doesn't kick in anyway.

 

Let us know the results when you can. Bazza

===