Posted by George Hester on 01/22/06 23:56

Yes Zombie I experince the memory issues and the Network issues you mention
about WinMX. Here is how I deal with them almost successfully. For one the
computer that is running Win MX is a 700MHz PIII Windows 2000 Professional
and it does nothing but WinMX. I do nothing else in that system. Nothing it
is strictly WinMX dedicated. So WinMX is not stealing memory from anything
else because nothing else needs it besides the operating system itself.

As for the share size. In opennap I find that a much bigger problem. A
opennap user had 15000 shares and sorting on name from size hung the
application. It was nasty.

As for the Network issues. I don't know what to conclude about this other
than Secondary connections are virtually worthless. Some seem to have good
secondaries while others have crap. They lose their hosts so damn much it is
irritating. Very hard trading with users on Secondary connections. Messaging
sucks. The Network is just not amenable to Secondary connections anymore.
Right now I have been online as shown in whois for 743:12:30. Most
Secondaries would be lucky if they were over 5:0:0. I do not know what the
trouble is I think it is just trying to work with a Protocol that is really
not very good relying on a hosts file. A very old incarnation of DNS that
just sucks. But it's all we have left if we want to continue to use WinMX.

Opennap has promise but the lack of multisourcing and autosearch makes it
lame. I queued a file in opennap and it will never complete becasue to do so
I will need to find the exact user manually for it. Crazy junk.

--

George Hester
_________________________________
"Zombie Wolf" <zmbwf@gwi.net> wrote in message
news:84WdndTh-IWIME7enZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Well, that's fine - when the network works well. But that is becoming the
> exception to the rule. And yes, i am running the latest patches. One thing
> you get on irc is, you have channels that have a designated "flavor".
> #mp3oldtimeradio is such a channel, and you can be sure you will find what
> you need on there. If you want to download a string of files, like a bunch
> of Lone Rangers, or some Fibber McGee and molly's, there is usually
someone
> on the channel that has what you are looking for, and you can just que the
> files up and get them, right now. With MX, you get people that lock you
out,
> either because they dont want to share, are a high-speed snot , etc. this
> increases the amount of "flailing around" you have to do to find and get
> what you want TREMENDOUSLY. It can take DAYS to do what i can do in an
hour
> or two on irc., and that is a fact. Another fact, George, is that the
search
> functions in MX dont work very well. I can search on the irc channel and
> find what i want in a few seconds. But in MX, you are subject to the
> vagaries of the program , and the network, not to mention high-speeders
who
> set their timeouts so short that a t-1 couldnt download from them,
etc,etc,
> etc, etc ad nauseum.
> Here are a few facts i have found out about MX , by experience over the
> years. the memory management in MX isnt very efficient, and the program is
> often "brain-dead", while it shows no symptoms of it. If you share out
more
> than about 3000 files, MX "chokes" on it. If you request up more than
about
> 400-450 files, the same thing happens. MX is fond of over-writing other
> progam's memory space, causing crashes, not to mention the fact that MX
> tries to maintain all partially - downloaded files in the computer's
memory
> all at the same time, which dont work so swift. MX was obviously written
in
> some archaic language, maybe VB6 or even earlier, and it just doesnt work
> very well because of it. A good re-write in VB.NET would do wonders for
it,
> but nobody does it. And probably, nobody is going to do it, either.
> Remember, George, the bottom line here is to GET the files, not wait until
> the network is having a "good day", or the program is "working well for
> now"..... As a programmer , the shortcomings of MX are all too apparent to
> me, George.......
>
> My computer ? A 2-gig p4 system, with two 350-gig hard drives, and 1
> gigabyte of installed memory. Plenty fast, but it dont help MX much, and
MX
> still displays the same memory management problems it does on my other
1200
> mhz tualatin system. both of them run XP, and I know how to "tweak" the
> system also, having been a system tech ( And windows sufferer all the way
> back to 3.1) for quite a few years now.
>
> Blind faith is not the answer here, George. Results are really all that
> counts. The newest iterations of Mirc ARE written in VB.NET (C++) , and
> therefore behave much better than MX does. period
>
> > Zombie I am surprised to hear you talk like that. I normally run with
20+
> > d/l and 10 u/l. They do not always complete but hey that's the way the
> > ball
> > bounces. MIRC might be a good thing I do not know never liked it.
Opennap
> > does have good sources just get a good wsx. There is a sourceforge
opennap
> > client called xnap you may find interesting.
> >
> > --
> >
> > George Hester
> > _________________________________
> >
>
>

[Back to original message]