Colorpicker RAM usage tests

[TP109]

Tested RAM usage for several color picker utilities. Results uploaded to link below:
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?fi ... 9272012127

Charts:

[I am Baas]

Additional color picker tools:

ColorBug @ http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... =4&t=20799
PointandSee @ http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... f=4&t=8721
PasteColor @ http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=2411
Kolorgenerator @ http://www.kolorgenerator.godula.com/ (Portable)

[shnbwmn]

I was about to suggest Pixie as a notable omission, before seeing that it was placed third. The thing is a few fricken kilobytes lol.

[TP109]

Additional color picker tools:

ColorBug @ http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... =4&t=20799
PointandSee @ http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... f=4&t=8721
PasteColor @ http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=2411
Kolorgenerator @ http://www.kolorgenerator.godula.com/ (Portable)

I will check those

I was about to suggest Pixie as a notable omission, before seeing that it was placed third. The thing is a few fricken kilobytes lol.

Yup, but it still uses that much RAM.

[TP109]

Updated OP with new charts and spreadsheet based on suggestions except for ColorBug (crashes on XP according to forum discussion) and PointandSee because no posters have stated anything good about it. It also has very limited functionality and has a very unattractive and confusing UI.

[webfork]

Given that I tend to run color tools in the background at length, less RAM is an important metric. Dropper now looks pretty sharp in this light

[Specular]

What other site would test RAM usage of color pickers. *Claps*

Really though, what insane color picker uses upward of 40MB of memory?

ColorPix is my fav, but it's never reached 20MB. Looking at Process Explorer the combined memory usage hovers at around 10MB.

[TP109]

Really though, what insane color picker uses upward of 40MB of memory?

ColorPix is my fav, but it's never reached 20MB. Looking at Process Explorer the combined memory usage hovers at around 10MB.

The 20MB for ColorPix is a combination of RAM,Pk RAM, and VM to obtain a benchmark figure. The last chart breaks this down and shows that Pk RAM is around 8.6MB for ColorPix. This is also shown and stated in the provided spreadsheet. The reason for combining these measurements is to get a more accurate estimate of total resource usage for comparison purposes.

Is RAM, Pk RAM, and VM combined on your system 10MB for ColorPix? I'm curious about what OS this was measured on.

Also, as I have stated before, these figures apply to what was measured on my system (XP).

[Specular]

The 20MB for ColorPix is a combination of RAM,Pk RAM, and VM to obtain a benchmark figure. The last chart breaks this down and shows that Pk RAM is around 8.6MB for ColorPix. This is also shown and stated in the provided spreadsheet. The reason for combining these measurements is to get a more accurate estimate of total resource usage for comparison purposes.

Is RAM, Pk RAM, and VM combined on your system 10MB for ColorPix? I'm curious about what OS this was measured on.

I see. Normally I have the extra columns hidden so assumed 'Peak' was 'max' but it's actually a different metric.

[TP109]

Slight error. It's min RAM, Pk RAM, and VM combined. In any case, this is clearly shown on the last chart. I was hesitant to include charts in previous posts because they are easily misinterpreted and the data can be presented in all kinds of ways. Users tend to look at a chart and see this is number 1 and number 2 and so on, and tend not to look at anything else. Differences in ranking don't really mean a lot if the difference is only a few percentage points or a few MBs of RAM. It's more significant when it's 25% or more. There's a tendency to focus on rank and I think that is misleading. In most cases, there is very little difference in performance of apps in the top 25% group, the 25%-50% group and so on, especially when there are gradual differences from 1st to last.

[webfork]

Quick note that SE-ColorMaker (one I just posted about) is not the most RAM friendly, as I sort of anticipated from TP109's SE-Explorer test (same dev). In my limited testing, I got between 13 and 33 megs of RAM.

[TP109]

Added Instant Eyedropper v1.90. Also cleaned up the charts a bit.

[TP109]

Added ColorGrabber2 and updated ColorMania to ver 6.1. Made minor changes for calculating the benchmark by eliminating installation size from the totals. Updated spreadsheet and charts to the more simplified and standardized form as used in recent tests (easier to update and maintain). As usual, new and updated apps for this series of tests have their names highlighted in yellow on the spreadsheet. [Updated/new apps are highlighted in either green or yellow, reason being that if previous tests used yellow highlighting, green is used for current tests. When tested again, yellow highlighting is used for current tests since previous tests were already highlighted in green.]