|
Please visit the LangaList Home Page Please note: Older issues may contain information that is now out of date. How To Subscribe
and Unsubscribe is at the end of this note. Mailing List Trouble? See http://www.langa.com/help.txt Please recommend the LangaList to a friend! (And maybe win $10,000 !) An easier-to
read formatted HTML version of this newsletter is available on line at The LangaList 2000-06-19 A Free Email
Newsletter from Fred
Langa
--------------(
Please Visit This LangaList Sponsor!) ------------
--------------(
the above is an advertisement )--------------
In Part One of this series ( http://content.techweb.com/winmag//columns/explorer/2000/11.htm
), we discussed the how and why of "resource leaks;" what they are,
the problems they can cause, and how you can determine if your system is
suffering from them: To refresh your memory, resource leaks typically involve
two special, fixed-size, internal scratchpad areas of Windows memory; their size
is unchangeable, and not related at all to how much RAM your system has. In
poorly coded apps, some of this limited, special memory may be used by an app
but not released when the app closes---or crashes. Over time, more and more of
these limited resources may be marked as "in use" even when they're
really not. Eventually, there's not enough space available to continue, and you
get an "out of memory" error message (even if you have tons of RAM),
or a crash. In Part Two ( http://content.techweb.com/winmag//columns/explorer/2000/12.htm
), I detailed the inner workings of a variety of tools and utilities that claim
to solve memory leaks. Along with explaining the pros and cons of "opening
holes in RAM," "RAM defragmentation" and related issues, Part Two
tells you why these apps can be worthless or even counterproductive. But it does
detail one limited and specific use of one particular freeware utility that I
feel is worthwhile. After Part Two appeared, I also
covered some ancillary information in a recent newsletter. For example, last
week, I explained why Windows has memory limits in the first place. (see http://www.langa.com/newsletters/2000/2000-06-12.htm#3
) Now it's time to pull it all
together: In Part Three, which will appear midday today (June 19th) in the
Explorer section of WinMag.com ( http://content.techweb.com/winmag//columns/explorer/2000/13.htm
) I'll explain a multi-part strategy I've developed that just may let you solve
your memory leak problems once and for all--- or, barring that, perhaps reduce
their severity to a negligible level. Using my systems as an example,
I'm able to prevent most memory- and resource-related crashes in the first
place, and can skate into the single digit range of system resources without any
trouble at all. And when an app does die for some reason, I can now potentially
recover orphaned general memory without rebooting. In my tests, I've gone day
after day after day with my resources rock-steady and stable; I very rarely have
to reboot due to a software problem or crash. Almost always, the only time I
reboot my main PC now is when I choose to create a disk image (a reinstallable,
byte-for-byte replica of the hard drive structure and data) for backup purposes;
the disk imaging software requires that Windows be shut down so that it can
properly record all the files, including those that are normally in use by
Windows. The idea for this multi-part plan
came to me after talking with other users and seeing the wide variety of
experiences with regard to resource leaks. While I can run for long periods
without resource/memory problems, other users can only run for periods of time
ranging from a couple days down to just a few hours. What could possibly account
for these huge differences? After much thought, I believe the
answer is in the way *all* of Windows' various memory subsystems work together:
Trouble in one area of Windows' memory subsystems could trigger or exacerbate
trouble in other areas. Or, to put it another way, trying to solve a
memory/resource problem by focusing on just one or two areas probably
isn't enough. For example, on my systems, I've
optimized all Windows memory areas and systems--- the swapfile, Vcache, MapCache
and so on; and I'm also very careful with what apps I run. I'm betting that if
you optimize your Windows memory areas and avoid the very worst, leakiest apps,
you too can probably get excellent results--- and a much more stable Windows. I'll lay out the entire
process--- it's not hard, but it touches on many areas--- in the Explorer column
that goes live midday today at http://content.techweb.com/winmag//columns/explorer/2000/13.htm
. Click on over, check out the column, and then join in the discussion! Click to
email this item to a friend --------------(
Please Visit This LangaList Sponsor!) ------------
--------------(
the above is an advertisement )--------------
That's what some angry readers
claim, after reading "On Microsoft's Being Forced to Split" ( http://www.langa.com/newsletters/2000/2000-06-12.htm#1
) . That item proved to be a real hot
button and the emails have been coming fast and frequently furious. I've (ulp!)
never had a topic where so many readers disagreed with me: While I agree that
some of Microsoft's behavior was inexcusable, I also strongly feel the case
never should have been brought to trial as an antitrust issue. But fully a third
of the email is strongly in favor of an antitrust action that results in the
splitting Microsoft. And some writers go much further, in effect wanting to see
Microsoft crushed flat, its campus razed, and the site's soil salted so nothing
will grow there for a thousand years. 8-) One way or another, for good or
ill, Microsoft's split will affect the entire world of computing--- it
will definitely affect *you* and the hardware and software *you use*. Because
it's so important and such a hot button, it's worth further discussion. I've grouped the anti-Microsoft
mail into several categories. Let's look at the largest groups: One group of readers felt that my
list of alternative browsers and OSes proved nothing because "no one heard
of those other browsers" or OSes. First, that's not true--- those browsers
and OSes are well known to any who take the time to look. More importantly, how
is it the place of the government to ensure that products are successfully or
equally promoted, supported or used? Isn't the fact that you may not have heard
of some of those alternative products *the vendors' own fault?* Usually, in a competitive
marketplace, when a product fails, it's because of a problem with the product or
the company marketing the product. Take one example: IBM, which played in both
of the areas I discussed---operating systems and browsers. IBM produced OS/2,
and (with OS/2-Warp) its own customized browser. The world responded with a
yawn. IBM couldn't get developers to
support their products, nor get users to use 'em. Whose fault is that? I believe
the correct answer is: IBM's. OS/2 was technically fine, but IBM couldn't
articulate its benefits very well--- they couldn't promote the product--- and
they saddled it with one of the ugliest interfaces ever designed. Worse, IBM's
relationships with (and support for) applications developers was truly awful:
For most of OS/2's "market window," it was expensive and difficult for
developers to get the tools they needed from IBM to write apps for OS/2. (That
may be the single worst mistake IBM made with OS/2; they should have *given* the
tools away for a while, to jump start the market....) Users, with no incentives from
IBM, and with no apps from developers, largely ignored OS/2. Without users,
developers lost any remaining incentive to write applications for it. Thus, IBM
managed things in such a way that practically guaranteed that OS/2 would never
take off. But revisionists now want to
claim that the real reason OS/2 died is because of Microsoft--- an argument that
ignores the historical facts mentioned above (you can check 'em yourself if you
don't believe me.) Plus, it ignores other nontrivial factors: For example, with
its hardware divisions, IBM had a ready-made venue for deploying OS/2 on all the
PCs and laptops it manufactured, if it wanted to do so. And---here's an irony---
IBM is much, much larger than Microsoft, with higher profits and over FOUR TIMES
the revenue. (IBM had $88 billion in revenue in FY1999; Microsoft had $20
billion. Again, check it yourself if you don't believe me; they're both public
companies and the financial information is readily available.) So, do you really think Microsoft
somehow killed OS/2 and its custom browser? To me, the facts make it clear that
it was IBM's own ineptness, despite its ample resources. And that's just one example. In any case, it's *not* the place
of the government to ensure that products are successfully promoted or supported
by their creators. These companies can take care of themselves---or, if they
can't, they and/or their products deserve to die. That's what competition is all
about. Next item:The Stac case. Click to
email this item to a friend -------------(
Please Visit This LangaList Sponsor!) ------------
--------------(
the above is an advertisement )--------------
Still other readers railed at
some of Microsoft's past bad conduct--- and I completely agree that Microsoft
has done some truly reprehensible things to competitors, with its treatment of
Stac Electronics in the 1980s leading the list. But Stac properly sued and won a
large settlement from Microsoft . That's a good thing: For the concrete wrongs
Microsoft committed, they absolutely, positively should be punished. And there
are venues for doing so, as Stac's enormous (and justified) settlement shows. But did Microsoft's bad--- and
sometimes illegal--- conduct towards competitors warrant antitrust actions?
Consider: Back in the 1980's, Microsoft wasn't a monopoly, and
non-monopolies can legally do things that are illegal for a monopoly. For example, in its ironclad
control of software AND hardware, Apple is far more dictatorial than Microsoft
has ever been. But because its marketshare is tiny, Apple's actions are NOT
illegal. But, if Apple becomes dominant at some point in the future, the
government can step in, and *in retrospect* proclaim that Apple's conduct became
illegal at some indeterminate point in the past when it crossed the invisible
boundary between non-monopoly and monopoly, and punish them. (Weird, eh?) But
pre-monopoly actions--- even if they were as draconian, totalitarian and
consumer-hostile as, say, Apple's--- are NOT necessarily illegal and can't
be included as part of the litany of complaints used to justify an antitrust
action. Plus, silly me, I thought
the whole point of antitrust law is to protect ordinary citizens--- consumers---
not corporations. In fact, I thought the whole point of the US, from its
inception, was to preserve not corporate or State, but individual liberties
(see, for example, the Declaration of Independence's "We, the
people..." or Lincoln's government "of the people, by the people, for
the people..."). If we change those to "We,
the corporations...." and "by big business, for big business, and of
big business...", then it will make perfect sense for the government to
step in with antitrust actions when corporations are harmed by vicious
competition. Until then, it's not the government's place to step in UNLESS
consumers are harmed. Free browsers and such may harm
software companies, but are actually GOOD for consumers. Next Item: Putting the browser
into the OS. Click to
email this item to a friend Still other readers said that,
"Microsoft had no business bundling the browser into the OS." Like the
first item, this argument also conveniently ignores history: Netscape (one of the main
witnesses against Microsoft) was once the undisputed king of the browser world.
When it was still top dog, it announced it intended to add OS services to its
already-dominant browser, creating a browser-plus-operating system that would
make Windows--- and Microsoft--- irrelevant. Netscape's Marc Andreesen stumped
around giving speeches predicting that Netscape would destroy Microsoft. With
Netscape moving to make its browser an OS, Microsoft moved to make its OS
a browser. Microsoft succeeded, Netscape did not. Therefore, we must punish
Microsoft. (Huh?) (BTW: Now that the trial is over,
Netscape co-founder Jim Clarke is now telling anyone who will listen that
Microsoft should be allowed to keep the browser in the OS after all. But that's
another story.) I can't imagine any rational
thinking that suggests that a company must sit on its hands when a competitor
announces it is bent on destruction of the company's bread and butter,
mainstream products. When Netscape announced it intended to use its dominant
browser to make Windows irrelevant, what should Microsoft have done? Sat still?
Riiiiiight---*that's* pro-competition, *that's* free market: Just sit there and
let a competitor kill you. But I guess that's what some of
the anti-Microsoft forces believe: While talking about being
"pro-competition," they expect a company, in some circumstances, not
to compete; not to defend itself. That makes no sense to me. I am 100% pro-competition: But
note that being against your competitors is not the same as being against
competition; harming competitors is not the same as harming competition. In
fact, harming competitors is the essence of competition. Yes, it's a harsh Darwnian model,
but consumers ultimately benefit. What hurts consumers is when the
government tries to protect inept competitors, enforcing a "survival of the
weak." Or worse, it
helps ensure that the companies that thrive are NOT the ones with the best
products or marketing, but with the best lawyers or the most political clout. In short, while I do NOT believe
that Microsoft is blameless or a paragon of all that is Right and Just (far, far
from it), I do believe the whole original decision to prosecute under antitrust
law was deeply flawed. Antitrust was and is simply the wrong tool to correct the
problems in the software industry; or specifically, to right Microsoft's wrongs. In any case, it was amazing to
read these emails, and I thank everyone--- pro or con--- who took the time to
write in. You're an amazingly intelligent and passionate group, and that's
great! You know, when faced with a
raging controversy, I often find it informative to look beyond the local
horizons and seek the opinions of those further away from the epicenter of
whatever is sparking the debate. For example, see the next item. Click to
email this item to a friend -------------(
Please Visit This LangaList Sponsor!) ------------
Join PayPal for FREE and get instant $5 cash gift. PayPal allows you to send money instantly and securely to
anyone You can send or request money person to person---or for
business use, It's safe, secure, and simple. Join today and get $5 https://secure.paypal.com/affil/pal=fred%40langa.com --------------( the above is an advertisement )-------------- I was a little surprised to see
that *almost all* the mail from outside the US was along the lines of the
following examples: From Sweden, a perception of
creeping bureaucracy: Hello! I enjoyed reading the comments to the rulings of the very
skilled(?) Judge Jackson. It sounds like he intends to kill a functioning world
standard. I would like to bundle Jackson with our Mr Persson (the Swedish
Prime Minister) and deposit the package on some deserted island. Still I think Microsoft will survive. But consumers will
probably have some extra costs purchasing less reliable new software. One cloud at the European horizon is that also the EU is keeping
an eye on Microsoft. You have probably heard of the brilliant decisions EU has
made considering the radius of the bend of bananas or the form [shape] of
carrots. Once they get going we will have some great rules also for software! A good thing with the EU is that stupidity in Europe is now
concentrated to Brussels. In the "old days", before EU, it was spread
all over Europe. Regards, Stig Boberg, Linkoping, Sweden From Australia, a perception of
the old, thoroughly-discredited, proven-unworkable, Soviet-style "command
economy" where the government dictates what products live and die: G'day Fred! Enjoyed your "jibe" at Judge Jackson. Boy! Here I was
thinking all the time that America was the champion of free enterprise, the home
of the entrepreneur, where building a successful business was every child's
dream! When did the Communists take over? I know they got heartily sick of them
after 50 or so years in the old Soviet Union. Never realised that they had moved
into the US and taken up such high positions in your judiciary. All without a
shot being fired - or did we miss something down here? It this situation wasn't
serious it would be funny! No I am not on the payroll of MS - just a user of the range of Bill's
products. Some good - some not perfect, but they serve my purpose....Over to
you. Lance in Australia Draw your own conclusions from
the above. <g> Click to
email this item to a friend I recently mentioned how some
readers---especially those on FreeI.Net--- were getting truncated LangaLists
that start at about item #4. (see http://www.langa.com/newsletters/2000/2000-06-05.htm#4
) As usual, a LangaList reader (and
FreeInet user) had an answer: Dear Fred, to avoid to problem with freeinet in item No. 4 of your 20000605
newsletter, read your newsletter at the freeinet's webmail address rather than
using their pop3 server. The format for that address is http://webmail.xx.freei.net
. Since I am in Texas, I would use http://webmail.tx.freei.net
. --- E. Ray Collins Click to
email this item to a friend -------------(
Please Visit This LangaList Sponsor!) ------------
Great NEW Books--- At a 20% Discount! Check out computer-related books http://www.langa.com/books.htm --------------( the above is an advertisement )-------------- If you think the
LangaList is a worthwhile read, just use the following link to recommend the
LangaList to a friend. Your friend just may find a new source of useful
information; I just may gain a new subscriber; and you just may win $10,000 for
your trouble (full details also available via this link): http://www.langa.com/recommend.htm#1 Or, win a copy of
"Poor Richard's E-Mail Publishing: Creating Newsletters, Bulletins,
Discussion Groups and Other Powerful Communications Tools." This book has
been described as "An excellent, straightforward manual on email
publishing, banner ads, driving traffic and especially ethics." (Full
details also available via this link): http://www.langa.com/recommend.htm#2 Either way, thank
you, and good luck! Click to
email this item to a friend Reader Dobbie Velosky writes: Fred, As always, enjoy and use your column. The "job evaluation"
piece brought to mind one that I had picked up somewhere. These are the other
side of the coin.....the resume. Again, supposedly the real thing, but who
knows. The misspellings, etc. - stet. 1. I demand a salary commiserate with my extensive experience. Click to
email this item to a friend -------------(
Please Visit This LangaList Sponsor!) ------------
You could WIN a Palm Pilot V and a Compaq Presario laptop
computer! Come to OnMoney.com to see and manage all your accounts in one
place. Bring together all your banking, investing, credit card, insurance and
reward program accounts into a single, easy-to-use statement. http://www.clk4.com/cgi-bin/conv.pl?7904 --------------(
the above is an advertisement )--------------
See you next issue! Best, Please recommend
the LangaList to a friend! (And maybe win $10,000!I) An easier-to read formatted
HTML version is available in the "Current Issue" section of http://www.langa.com.
(The HTML version of each issue normally is available by 9AM EST [UT-5] of the
issue date.) All past LangaList issues are also available at the Langa.Com site. Why are you getting this
newsletter? This is a 100% OPT-IN newsletter: There are only three ways to get
on the list--- signup via direct email request from you, or signup via the
WinMag newsletter page or signup via BrowserTune's email-notification service.
If you're getting this newsletter; your name came to me through one of those
signup channels. At signup, you also received a confirmation email from my list
software---no one is signed up secretly or against their will. SUBSCRIBE (it's free!):
Create and send a new email address it to subscribe-langalist@lyris.dundee.net UNSUBSCRIBE: From the same
address you used to sign up with (it's shown on the first line in the body of
each email issue you receive), create and send a new email address to unsubscribe-langalist@lyris.dundee.net
. CHANGE ADDRESS? LIST
TROUBLE? HAVE QUESTIONS? NEED HELP? See http://www.langa.com/help.txt About
the advertisers: Langa Consulting LLC will never knowingly accept
advertising for a fraudulent product, company or service. However, Langa Consulting LLC makes no implied or explicit warranty, recommendation or endorsement
of or for the products, companies or services mentioned in the ads. Disclaimer:
(Please see full disclaimer here: http://www.langa.com/legal.htm.)
Abbreviated version: The tips and other information given in the newsletter are
researched and are believed to be accurate, but we cannot and do not guarantee
that all the information here will work on all systems, for all users, all the
time. All information herein is offered as-is and without warranty of any kind.
Neither Langa Consulting LLC, nor its employees nor contributors are responsible for
any loss, injury, or damage, direct or consequential, resulting from application
of any information presented here. This newsletter is a free
service of Langa Consulting LLC and is Copyright © 2000 Langa Consulting LLC. All
rights reserved. |
|