?Assessment/opinion/report -- Cacheman 5.50

Anybody here have anything good or bad to say about Cacheman 5.50?

I'm still working on that antique comp: Win98SE, fully patched, P2 333MHz, 256 MB PC100 (yep!) SDRAM, nothing else worth mentioning.

Wondering whether I can get it to go faster than a speeding snail. I have it set so I manage the swap at 640MB max and min, File Sys is Network Server, Sys.ini has the "conservativeswapfileusage" tweak, so the win386.swp size is always 0.

Just noticed that the mem chips in DIMM slots 1,2,3 were 64MB, 64MB, 128MB, in that order, so I switched the chips in 3 and 1, and actually NOTICED a bit of a speedup. Not sure why, but I thought I recalled that RAM oughta be inserted highest-number first, so I tried it.

Back to Cacheman: any thoughts?

 

I have been using Cacheman for a couple of years. It does its job very well, optimizing memory, swapfile, cache, etc. The version I have now is 5.11 (didn't know that 5.50 was out).

 

Thanks for the reply, Aurelius. I was beginning to think I was the only person in the universe who had heard of or tried it.

Please tell me what Profile you chose, and if you can spare a sec, tell me why that one. I'm looking at Power User and CD-Writer, rather than Standard Computer, but I may be missing something.

In the CD-writer setting, I think I recall that it sets the swap at 2048 max and min, but I currently have mine set to 640 max and min, and I use the Conservativeswapfile usage tweak in system.ini. With that combo, win386.swp is either at 0KB or doesn't exist. I can't see why I'd want a swap setting larger than 2.5 times the RAM in the old machine (256MB), especially since the machine doesn't seem to use the swap at all.

I'd appreciate advice on this.