Hey Bubby, I posted in the comments section because I didn't think all the answers over there where addressing what people were really asking. I don't agree with your sources that ALL memory optimizers can't accomplish anything, but I do agree that it's not a good solution. I only post because I think people have gotten a little away from a realistic appraisal. For example, I've read other things by Russinovich and I think he's excellent. But "unused RAM is wasted RAM" is nonsense. There's SO many common sense analogies I could give to refute this. Here's one: If you don't eat all the food in your refrigerator every time you open it, is it wasted?

Here's some of what I wrote in comments:
"Unfortunately, a lot of people much, much smarter than I am have written here, but a lot of them are painting with too broad a brush or are right about their convictions but, unfortunately, are defending them with partly incorrect evidence. But just to show you I’m trying to be objective on this:
1. Last time a memory optimizer was given away I defended optimizers.
2. Some quotes about Windows memory management and whether it’s perfected, as some here are saying, right from my Vista help:
“If a software program can’t get enough memory from the operating system to complete a task, the program or computer can freeze or stop functioning.”
“As you open and close files and programs, memory gets fragmented just like your hard disk drive. Close programs and check whether the memory increases. If the memory does not increase, your computer may have a memory leak that does not give resources back to the operating system.”
If my “esteemed colleagues” (I really DO hold these posters in high esteem) here have a problem with these statements, please write MS, not me.
Still, the answer on memory defraggers is no because:
1. One of the reasons virtual memory was developed was to cut down on RAM fragmentation and, if it ain’t perfect, it’s more than good enough. Even if some of these defraggers are legit., they’re likely using pre-virtual memory coding - wrong and ineffective medicine for the patient.
2. Memory optimizers can’t practically optimize - at best they can slightly protect against the slow downs and lockups that come from being too close to your RAM’s limits. Of the 3 types that I know about - defraggers, purgers, and those that reduce the page set by using a Windows memory function, usually “EmptyWorkingSet”, such as “Cleanmem”, only the last one uses an approach that’s adapted to the way Windows currently works. But, even that can cause problems.
3. Memory optimizers are bandaids. And those that don’t use a realistic approach, like the Cleanmem type does, are potentially infected bandaids.
In other words, every other approach to avoid running out of memory is better.
A.I don’t like spending other peoples money, but upgrading your memory or computer is better.
B. Preventing unnecessary programs from loading at startup is better.
C. Not trying to get blood out of stone by leaving too many documents open or programs running when they don’t need to be is better.
D. Monitoring your memory with a program that will warn you when you're reaching your limit so you can close unnecessary documents and close and reopen programs that are holding too many pages im memory (thus purging the no longer necessary pages) is better.
E. Finding applications that have lower memory footprints and leak less (IE7 for example is a slow leaker) is better.

From someone who’s used optimizers, the bottom line is:
1. Memory defraggers fall into the category of either being outright frauds or purging memory in a way that doesn’t give you a boost.
2. Windows memory management, though not perfect, is quite good. It’s not the dog it used to be.
3. All memory optimizers are a dirty, stopgap solution. It’s like using a screwdriver as a prybar without safety glasses (or even with them). I’ve done it and it often works, but I wouldn’t want to be there when it doesn’t. (I’ve broken screwdrivers that way, but haven’t hurt myself, yet, but I know those who have.)

You right with that BuBBy good info I put some on my PC with 2000 MB Ram the best one use 2 MB to run and free up 1 MB so I lost 1 MB run Windows XP

Thanks fer the good info Bub, how true. Very enlightening.

The Memory-Optimization Hoax
RAM optimizers make false promises
Mark Russinovich - SysInternals
http://www.savefile.com/files/2002646

Virtual Memory in Windows XP.
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

The Truth about Windows Memory Optimizers
http://www.bitsum.com/winmemboost.asp

MSDN - The Virtual Memory Manager in Windows NT
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms810616.aspx

Fred Langa - "Memory Optimizer" Confusion
http://www.langa.com/newsletters/2004/2004-12-16.htm#2

To illustrate why an application cannot 'defrag the memory' of another application.

Diagram

The virtual address space for a process is the set of virtual memory addresses that it can use. (ie. address space = the set of memory addresses)

The address space for each process is private and cannot be accessed by other processes unless it is shared. (ie. a "memory defrag" type program cannot access the memory of other programs that are running)

A virtual address (That a running program knows about) does not represent the actual physical location (which memory chip) of an object in memory; instead, the system maintains a page table for each process, which is an internal data structure used to translate virtual addresses into their corresponding physical addresses. Each time a thread references an address, the system translates the virtual address to a physical address. (ie. the program doesn't know or care about where the memory is physically coming from - it just sees a "pool" of memory)

IN ENGLISH (almost) - Windows deals with the physical storage and locations and types of memory. Windows hides this from all programs - and programs don't have to worry about it (and can't do anything anyway).

The Win32 Application (being the 'defrag program') cannot actually see what physical memory is allocated for itself (or any other process) - as the "NT Virtual Memory Manager" masks the physical allocation (ie. which memory chips the program is running on) - being "Physical Memory".

If an application cannot see which memory chips it is running from - or access/restructure/move virtual or physical memory of another process - it definitely cannot perform some sort of defragmentation.

----------------------

A type of fragmentation that can occur (very different to what is claimed to be fixed by the magic memory defraggers) is being addressed in some fashion by Microsoft and handled at the Virtual Memory Manager level. This is something that if it is a problem should really be dealt with by the application developers.

Configure memory manager to minimize memory fragmentation.
http://smallvoid.com/article/winnt-memory-decommit.html