Computer power button trick: What does it do and why does it work?

[alterego]

@groman

Pushing the power button on a computer that is unplugged does nothing most of the time.

I agree, which is why I asked for a cite to accompany the initial claims of such.

[Oslo_Ostragoth]

@KlondikeGeoff

Some time ago I found a freeware program called Memory Cleaner (memclnr.exe). It puts an icon on your desktop, and when thing get slow, I click that and it frequently retreives 200-300 of my 512 of memory.

There are a bunch of other memory retreivers that seem to work pretty well. Try Googling.

Do you have any more info on this? I am running into dead ends…

[MyNameIsEarl]

@Oslo Ostragoth

Do you have any more info on this? I am running into dead ends…

Please don’t use these apps. All every single one of them does is page everything in your physical RAM out to the page\swap file, resulting in (what appears to be) a nice increase in available RAM. Of course, the second you click on those paged programs again, everything is pulled back out of the pagefile and you’re exactly where you were before you ran the “memory manager”. It’s the sad truth, but Win9x’s memory management sucks and programmers that use cheap tricks to take advantage of users that don’t know any better should be slapped with a trout. It’s all smoke-and-mirrors folks - it doesn’t work.

@bzwilak

I am using a 2000 Dell with:
382 Mb SDRAM
Intel Pentium III at 550Mhz
Windows 98 SE

This is more than fine for 2000, although XP has more user-friendly features (and is not EOL, either). You might want to turn off XP’s eye candy on such a machine tough. 384MB of RAM is sheer waste in 98 though; any program that needs that much RAM (like Photoshop) will run 100x better on an NT OS than a 9x one.

@engineer_comp_geek

I’m generally fairly reluctant to advise a switch from a Windows OS (95, 98, ME) to an NT OS (NT 4, 2000, XP)

Why? Do you still recommend black and white TVs to friends too? Also, they’re all Windows operating systems. Use “9x” for one line and “WinNT” for the other - it greatly reduces confusion.

@engineer_comp_geek

For the software you are using, 2000 or XP will both run just fine on your machine. XP is more of a resource hog though.

Absolutely not true in any way, shape or form. If you have an older PC, just turn off all the eye candy and XP will be just as nimble as 2000 on the same hardware. 'Cos you know… 2000 is “Windows 5.0” and XP is “Windows 5.1”, right? It’s all the same codebase.

@bzwilak

I regularly use Norton Utilities, which does all kinds of good stuff, such as defragging, registry repairs, etc etc.

There’s one of your problems right there. Using Norton\Symantec products makes Baby Jesus cry. And before you ask for a cite, there are 87,514 threads at Ars Technica alone about how godawful Norton\Symantec products are, so ask there if you want specifics.

@bzwilak

Norton also has a System Information program which does, in fact, show exactly what program is using exactly how much of memory, threads, etc.

SI is a silly resource hog itself. And yes, Java by definition is a memory leak… ask anyone that uses Azureus.

So yeah - ditch 9x. Get 2000/XP. See memory leaks disappear (accept for that &%@ Java, but since WinNT has a real task manager, it’s easy to kill when needed… or you could just use PSkill. Whatever.

[GusNSpot]

“There’s one of your problems right there. Using Norton\Symantec products makes Baby Jesus cry. And before you ask for a cite, there are 87,514 threads at Ars Technica alone about how godawful Norton\Symantec products are, so ask there if you want specifics.”

Preach it brother…

I too liked some of the Nortons utilities… But I finally saw the light…

I run 98se on a 600HZ prodessor. I surf, do aohell, aim, yahoo Opra, IE, Irefox and all dat. I only run about two things at once and I can’t keep up with over two IM conversations at once so I don’t open more windows than that. Do go to 512 Meg RAM fi you can. I run 700+ just fine but don’t sweat that part, everyone says it won’t work without a lot of jiggiling…

Do keep your IE temp files and cookies and stuff cleaned out and keep the puter defraged… I am on dial-up now but was on a nifty DSL that gave me 300 up and 770 down and my little 7200 RPM hard drives and 600HZ processor and 100HZ buss did just fine… I only have 4 things go at start, SYS tray, Zonealarm, popup stopper, and a special cursor I like.

Keep your cache clean, run adware, and Spyblock regular and you should fly fine…

DUMP the NORTONS, you will be amazed… YMMV

[engineer_comp_geek]

@MyNameIsEarl

Why? Do you still recommend black and white TVs to friends too?

The “windows” (or 9.x) series of operating systems is fundamentally different in architecture than the NT line of operating systems. Because of the hardware abstraction layer (which is one of the keys’ to the NT line’s greater stability), and also because of Microsoft’s tendency to intentionally break backwards compatibility if they think they can make the OS “better”, a lot of software that works perfectly fine on a 9.x OS won’t work at all on an NT OS. Upgrading from 9.x to NT (like going from 98 to XP) can very easily put you in a position where you have this really great OS that won’t run any of the software you need it to run, which makes it a very pretty boat anchor. Any upgrade from 9.x to an NT OS should be done very carefully with a lot of attention paid to potential incompatibility problems (both hardware and software). Hence my reluctance to recommend XP as a general replacement for 98.

@MyNameIsEarl

Absolutely not true in any way, shape or form. If you have an older PC, just turn off all the eye candy and XP will be just as nimble as 2000 on the same hardware. 'Cos you know… 2000 is “Windows 5.0” and XP is “Windows 5.1”, right? It’s all the same codebase.

[nitpick]2000 is NT 5.0 and XP is NT 5.1[/nitpick] but yes, that’s absolutely true. It just requires the user to go through a lot of settings to turn off all the eye candy.

[bzwilak]

Hmmm. Would one of you Anti-Norton types please offer a laymen’s “nutshell” explanation of why Norton / Symantec allegedly sucks?

[Oslo_Ostragoth]

@GusNSpot

I run 98se on a 600HZ prodessor. I surf, do aohell, aim, yahoo Opra, IE, Irefox and all dat. I only run about two things at once and I can’t keep up with over two IM conversations at once so I don’t open more windows than that. Do go to 512 Meg RAM fi you can. I run 700+ just fine but don’t sweat that part, everyone says it won’t work without a lot of jiggiling…

I was told that that 98SE can’t handle more than 128M of RAM, which seems to be the case on my machine. Is there a trick to getting it to use lots o’ memory?

[engineer_comp_geek]

@Oslo Ostragoth

I was told that that 98SE can’t handle more than 128M of RAM, which seems to be the case on my machine. Is there a trick to getting it to use lots o’ memory?

It’s 512, not 128, and yes, there is a way around it. This site has details:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=333688

[Oslo_Ostragoth]

@engineer_comp_geek

It’s 512, not 128, and yes, there is a way around it. This site has details:
Google Answers: Windows 98 Maximum RAM

I think I either have 2128 + 32, or 3128, but it seems like it is not using it all efficiently. Am I out of luck, or is this a separate but related problem?

[asterion]

@bzwilak

Hmmm. Would one of you Anti-Norton types please offer a laymen’s “nutshell” explanation of why Norton / Symantec allegedly sucks?

Norton’s programs are often resource hogs. They don’t play nicely with the corporate edition (I speak from experience here) and the corporate edition is actually a decent piece of software. But I like Scylla’s description the best.