FSAutostart is a useful program for closing down all unwanted extras prior to running FS9. It also runs a memory defragmentor. However, one thing I was wondering. Why does the memory shown as available when it's finished closing down applications and deframenting always seem to differ? Sometimes it's 370mb (of 512mb available). Sometimes it's 412mb and sometimes it's 350mb? I've gained from around 50mb up to over 100mb. Why is the final free memory figure never the same?

I hope I haven't confused everybody with this question!:-) Victor

Hi Victor,No, I don't think you have confused anybody. I suspect that it's more a case of we don't know the answer! I have noticed similar behaviour in that the amount of memory freed can vary. I have a utility called 'FreeRAM XP Pro', which I use from time to time, and see the same sort of thing happening there. Presumably has something to do with XP's memory management.Mike

I don't know either, but any more memory must be a good thing! :)

Memory use in Windows XP is subject to much misunderstanding and although I've read up on it I'm still no expert. But in simple terms, I think the answer is that Windows recovers RAM at various times accordng to complex rules. Sometimes those rules will trigger free memory recovery just by applying the defragmentation and at oter times it won't. Windows XP tries to anticipate needs, so it might hold .dll's in memory for longer than ideal in some situations. Trouble with most memory recovery programs is that they lack the sensitivity of XP memory management and they just shut down everything that's not currently running. So the answer to your question is that it depends on what you were running prior to running FSAutostart, what settings yo have in FSAutostart, what applications you still have lurking in the allocated memory of XP and where they are in the `dumping` scheme of things at the time you run the defragmenter.Allcott

Ok, thanks for the replies. I thought increasing available RAM was a simple matter. It just goes to show what I know - or don't!Well the best I've been able to obtain using FSAutostart and a downloaded RAM cleaner is 415MB out of 512MB which doesn't sound too bad to me.

There are memories that XP (or any decent OS) will allocate for file cache, etc, that vary and cannot be paged out.I think that if you are able to get only 100MB in use you are doing pretty good.

Yes, 100mb sounds like a `lean fighting machine` to me too!Thing is, with RAM so cheap, why not just buy some more? In most cases its cheaper to buy another RAM stick than some fancy doodad memory management program that usually does more harm than good!Allcott

>Yes, 100mb sounds like a `lean fighting machine` to me too!>>Thing is, with RAM so cheap, why not just buy some more? In>most cases its cheaper to buy another RAM stick than some>fancy doodad memory management program that usually does more>harm than good!>>>AllcottThe 100mb is with a bare bones configuration.Well, as Christmas will be coming along soon.....:D I've also updated my Radeon 9600 Pro drivers from the 4.3 to the 4.10 ones and I think that has given me extra FPS but that could be my imagination.Has anybody been able to show one way or the other whether using the XP file compression has any effect om FS9 or not?