New build 459

By Andrey Zarudnev | November 1st, 2008 | 1:00 pm

Another update published: 3.0.0.459

It has some user access to common file fixes for Vista users and an additional progress dialog shown during the applications search procedure.

Any bugs? comments? suggestions? ;)

4 Responses to “New build 459”

  1. Louie
    Nov 02, 2008

    Major bug in 459 only: it refuses to cache ram, shows up as ! with 0 mb allocated at all times.

    Other minor stuff.
    1. Do we use this with superfetch or better turn superfetch off.
    2. Hit cache ratio seems extremely low since build 456, 469. In the first beta version, I had around 90% hit ratio, now 10%.
    3. How much ram should I cache when I have 8gb, most applications only use max 2gb and I don’t run 2 big applications at the same time.
    4. When I cache ram and USB, why does it fill USB first?
    5. Does eBoostr cache ram after boot up or during boot up. If it’s during boot up, it increases the boot up time?
    6. Possible to allow users a to see a list of most frequently used applications/files, eBoostr calculates them statically anyway don’t they? This would probably give the user more satisfactory as it shows the program is doing it’s job.


  2. Louie
    Nov 02, 2008

    that cant cache ram bug fixed after restart. total 2 restarts after installation of new version.


  3. fastest963
    Nov 02, 2008

    @Louie
    Superfetch can stay on, it shouldn’t matter.
    I would allocate 2-3 GB of RAM. I wouldn’t go much higher because you would then be just filling it up with useless files. Probably 2gb.
    What I do is first add the RAM, let it fill to 100% and then add any other drives. This ensures that the RAM gets the “best” files.
    You can visit the Edit -> Show Cache Content to look at the drive?

    Also, there seems to be a minor problem with uTorrent. When I was downloading the latest Ubuntu, I got uTorrent errors saying the file couldn’t be accessed. I excluded my download directory and my uTorrent settings directory and now everything works fine. Any ideas?


  4. btester92
    Nov 06, 2008

    It’s working great for me, I did a speed test and the cache speed is almost 5 times faster than direct access speed! I’m using the RAM cache, so it should be fast, but it’s still very impressive.