CachemanXP to speed up Windows XP

[Stangs55]

Anyone tried/used this program? Is it worth it?

http://www.outertech.com/index..._page=product&id=7

 

[BFG10K]

Programs like these are a waste of time. The NT memory manager is quite capable of doing the job correctly.

 

[imported_jb]

i thought i noticed a difference w/ it on a P200 w/32MB and Win95, so i used it for years. i like the ability to give any misbehaving programs a whack with the memory stick.

 

[beatle]

I loved using cacheman when I had 98SE. It sped up the feel of Windows. More importantly, it made it STABLE! I could get 2+ weeks out of a 98 box, which was great for the time.

Nowadays, I don't think it's worth it. BFG10K is right. I don't even use a static swap file size, as XP does a pretty good job of it.

 

[marmasatt]

Everyone else is right. 98SE or below it's well worth it, trust me. If you're on NT or above, they both do a pretty good job at managing memory as I understand it. If you think it's your memory slowing down your system, then get more

 

[TheWart]

finally gave in and uninstalled the program after i failed to notice any improvement in two of my WinXP systems.

 

[LocutusX]

It worked on Win95/Win98 because they were primitive pseudo-hybrid-16/32-bit operating systems which really weren't written that well even by 90's standards. But the NT kernel & OS were designed from the ground up by former DEC folks to be reasonably modern and they drew upon lessons learned when designing and developing mainframe OS's. I should say that even NT4 benefitted from "tweaking" but by the time we got to NT5, any tweaking merely had a placebo effect.

some people seem to think that at times Win2K+ has problems with the filesystem cache bloating but IMO that only happens with poorly written applications.