Posted by Zombie Wolf on 01/23/06 05:18

well, George, this s fine, if you are willing to run a dedicated computer
for WinMX exclusively (personally I find that a bit strange). This still
wont solve the long-term basic problems of MX. As I said, MX has a real bad
habit of intruding upon other application's memory space, causing crashes
and brain dead states that are virtually un-detectable, until you try to
open something else up. Modern computers are supposed to be able to
multi-task, and people expect this to work. This has been the entire focus
of windows, since the introduction of windows 95, that programs should be
able to co-exist and run at the same time without beating hell out of each
other, and ESPECIALLY without crashing the machine all the time. This ideal
was hard to achieve, and that is why VB.NET came into being, to solve the
last problems with this. NET has been around for several years now, and
takes the "over-write the other program's memory" problem into account
nicely. It is fairly easy to convert a program written in let's say, C, into
a NET application , NET will even help you convert it over. Most of the
major applications have now been converted and / or re-written as of this
posting, and actually, it all took place several years ago.

Now, as to the "secondary connection" issues, like I said before , if you
keep your shares down below 3000 or so, and dont request more than about 400
files, you will have a lot less trouble. Actually, I find the program quite
amenable and functional if you keep requests down to about 250. Remember, a
lot of these files are going to become partially - downloaded files, and
that eats up memory, since MX tries to maintain them all in the computer's
"live" memory. A "load Incomplete" beomes a nightmare if you have a lot of
these files.

Here is a quick solution for those that have made a lot of requests, and
have lots of "partials" (way too many). Make a folder inside the MX folder,
and then cut and paste enough of the files into that directory to get the
numbers within reason,while MX churns in the remaining files. Once you get
caught up a bit, you can "cut and paste" the files back into MX, and it will
proceed to get the extra files. This works real well, And MX actually
becomes functional once again. Dont forget to do a "load incomplete" after
pasting files back to the MX main folder. This will bring them up and it
will look for and get them. Try it. You'll like it. This solves most of MX's
memory probems AND network problems, George.

A caveat here is that you don't want to try pasting the files into anothe
copy of MX on another compuer somwhere, since the checksums won't match.
confine all this activity to the directory on the computer where that
particular copy of MX lives, and you will have no problems.


"George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xYUAf.111715$ME5.33802@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> 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]