Tech: ABOUT Windows 98 SE and stuff

Subject: Tech: ABOUT Windows 98 SE and stuff
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 04:04 PM

Original Thread at Subject: RE: Tech: Who has Windows 98 Second Edition asked for "volunteers," but we've hijacked it for a discussions about Windows.

I'm suggesting that if we want to give Max info pertinent to his question - post in the original thread.

If we have discussion, questions (including most speculation about why Max wants to know), put it here.

My next post here will bring some of the"tech-talk" stuff forward from the "volunteer" thread.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: ABOUT Windows 98 SE and stuff
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 04:05 PM

Tech issues from Subject: RE: Tech: Who has Windows 98 Second Edition
Subject: RE: Tech: Who has Windows 98 Second Edition
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04-Jun-02 - 01:20 AM
I have problems with the CD version of the Digital Tradition. If I use it too long, it locks my computer. When I exit the program, it stays running. Dick & Susan have had no problems. Is that my Win 98 SE??

The experimental version of Mudcat hasn't given me any problems that seem to be related to a conflict with my operating system, but the DT problem sure is frustrating.

-Joe Offer-


Subject: RE: Tech: Who has Windows 98 Second Edition
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 04-Jun-02 - 01:46 AM
Joe

I doubt that it's a 98SE-peculiar problem, although there are differences from version to version. The DT is basically a DOS program, and it's typically a problem for them to be "leaky."

Run in a "pure DOS" environment, some programs "lock up" fairly quickly - and some permit what Windows would consider "memory violations" and just write over "old-in-use memory and keep running. The problem is that memory (RAM) must be "allocated" for anything that's get done, and must be "released" when the process is finished. Failure to release results in a steady "leakage" that reduces available memory.

Most Windows operating systems impose a "security layer" between DOS (or any) programs and the actual hardware RAM and disks. This can sometimes help - but more often hinders the release of memory that's already been used. Where DOS can just charge ahead with an "illegal" operation, Windows may refuse to turn loose until it's asked nicely.

I don't think 98SE is any worse about this than other "near" versions.

I'm speculating on what's happening here, since I haven't used the DT on my own machine for several years. (I have the Oct96 version.)

Actually, if you open the '96 .ask file in Word - as text only, and do about 400,000 selected global character replacements to get rid of the messy characters, you get a fairly readable plain text document of only about 2,500 pages - which Word can search quite nicely, if a little slowly, as long as you save often and reboot occasionally. (T.I.C.B.G.)

John


Subject: RE: Tech: Who has Windows 98 Second Edition
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 04-Jun-02 - 08:22 AM
I think "using it to long" are the key words here. As John has suggested it could well be mermory resource issues that cause the problem.
I don't know if John is right in suggesting it is basically a DOS program - I had been under the impression that the CD version was a Windows program.
There are other resource issues with Windows in that the OS uses chunks of memory called system resources (user and GUI I think). Windows has varied in its handling of these resources, I know Win 3.1 used fixed 64K segments which could soon get eaten up and on the other hand some NT versions could use all availible memory. I'm not sure where 98SE sits on this but I think '95 improved on 3.1 and 98 made further improvemnts.
From a programmers side, in my very limited experience, when I have had programs that have been unstable and would suddenly lock or do wierd things, the root cause has either been failure to release resources (as John explained above, sooner or later you run out) or failure to allocate memory correctly. It is quite possible for example to assign values to dynamic variables (pointers) without first reserving memory for thier use. The net effect here is that you are writing to "unknown memory" and although things may appear OK for a while, believe me just about anything is possible! Again, as John has indicated, Windows is far more likely to "call foul" than DOS which will happily let you write anywhere until you bring the system to a grinding halt. An OS may also complain if you try to free up resources that you never allocated in the first place...
Jon


Subject: RE: Tech: Who has Windows 98 Second Edition
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 04-Jun-02 - 08:46 AM
I should add, the sort of issues mentioned above don't really enter into the sort of web programming done at the Annexe (and I would think at Mudcat) as I never get that close to the operating system, or even if I did it would almost certainly be at the server side.
The game, at least with the Annexe, is to try to ensure that you have your data going into and out of a (hopefully) reasonably well organised database. The scripts interact with the database and the aim is to churn out HTML for the users to view and interact with on thier browers. My pages at the server side generally contain a mix of plain HTML and some VB script, some of which outputs HTML using "Response.Write" and other parts are just the programming logic.
As an example, I could have something like:
For I = 1 to 10 Response.Write I & "
" Next
When a user requests the page, the server will interpret that and the user would get sent a page that contained the numbers 1 to 10, one number per line.
Jon


Subject: RE: Tech: Who has Windows 98 Second Edition
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 04-Jun-02 - 09:19 AM
Jon -

As I indicated, I'm looking at a very old version of the DT, but it (Oct96) was a straight DOS program. My understanding was that a Windows "front end" had been added, but the basic database was probably not recompiled.

Even a lot of programs rewritten/recompiled specifically for Windows have significant "memory leaks," which is frequently the cause of "lock-up" behaviour.

Windows has "very large" memory available, through paging of memory segments to hard drive - but it does this, essentially, by writing lots of "temp" files to the drive. Using Word as an example, selecting a 200 page document full of one line paragraphs, and sorting "by paragraphs" will probably work once. A similar operation would be a "global replace" all the periods with commas, or some such. If you immediately try to "sort reverse order," or change all the "a" to "t"s, you're fairly likely to "bog down." If you do a full save, you clear some of the temps, but they tend to hang in there so that eventually you need to exit and restart Word.

Doing massive global replace or sort operations on large documents will eventually lead to where even closing and restarting Word doesn't clear things. You have to go into Explorer and delete *.tmp in the Windows Temp directory - at least - or reboot the machine.

Even Word97/Word7 has rather massive "leaks" for some kinds of operations.

Windows 95, in its original incarnation, required contiguous free space for its temp directory, so a fragmented drive could almost eliminate your virtual memory. Windows 98, and possibly 95 with the right SR patches, is supposed to be able to use non-contiguous free space for temp files, but my experience has been that a fragmented drive will cut down on what is "usable," - and, by design, the default limits temp files to 10 percent (?) of drive free space.

John


Subject: RE: Tech: Who has Windows 98 Second Edition
From: Fionn
Date: 04-Jun-02 - 02:29 PM
Bill D is right to avoid XP. And legal versions come with that product-authorisation joke of a security system. On the other hand, Win2000 blows away Win9X and Me. It sticks in my throat to say so, but for once Microsoft got something right.


Subject: RE: Tech: Who has Windows 98 Second Edition
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04-Jun-02 - 05:35 PM
I'm using Beta #2 of the Windows version of the Digital Tradition, John. It depends on Quicktime to play the tunes. I switched to the latest version of Quicktime, but that didn't solve my problem.

I also have a problem with alignment of notes on the printed output of the sheet music. I have the same problem with Finale 2002 (with Finale, I think the problem is just with files I've converted from an earlier version of Finale).

-Joe Offer-


Subject: RE: Tech: Who has Windows 98 Second Edition
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 04-Jun-02 - 08:54 PM
Shop: Run On
Joe - I can't offer much help on the DT Betas, since I haven't seen one, and the info on the DT sites doesn't really say much about what's being done.

Quicktime seems to be okay, and I've used it some. My system was recently hijacked by Windows Media Player so that it insists on turning on whenever I try to open anything related to music - I gotta do some cleanup. It also doesn't seem to cause any real problems, I just don't care for the interface.

Win95 and 98/98SE do sometimes have problems with RealPlayer. I'm not sure whether they apply to Win2K etc. Microsoft had a note on it in the Knowledge Base, but apparently "archived" it when RealPlayer claimed to have fixed the problem. - Can't find it now. RealPlayer won't run on my machine (I've tried 3 versions) although it worked fine on my S.O.s identical (except for special purpose software) Win98SE machine and works on her current Win2K.

Most of the notation programs do an on-the-fly spacing anytime you "import" something, and that would probably be the case bringing in an older Finale file in a new version. Finale 2001 (I have a demo) has a selection for "alignment" that says:

"If Automatic Music Spacing is checked under the Edit menu, your music is automatically spaced as you enter it according to engraving standards. If unchecked, then select a region with the Mass Mover Tool and choose Apply Note Spacing from the Music Spacing submenu of the Mass Mover menu."

You might take a look and see if you're set up to get what you want to get, or if an "Apply alignment" will fix what you're seeing.

You're original problem with "locking up" still sounds like a memory leak. About all you can do is delete temp files (everything in Windows\Temp, it won't let you delete anything that's actually "in-use"), reboot more often, and defrag frequently.

We seem to have hijacked the thread (drifting wildly in unknown waters?) I'd say we ought to start a new one to discuss problems, and leave this one for it's original purpose - but I'm not sure what we'd call the new one.

John


Subject: RE: Tech: Who has Windows 98 Second Edition
From: Mr Red
Date: 07-Jun-02 - 02:50 PM
I got a question - may be related
Anyone any experience on running Win98SE on faster machines.
I was told by a PC shop it was a problem. I forgot to poo poo his comment in the context of my other PC (750 Athlon) and no problems that I am aware of other thean not powering down automatically - it re-boots. The likely cause was not described in terms of processor speed.
BUT what about machines up to 2 GHz?

Copied by John

Subject: RE: Tech: ABOUT Windows 98 SE and stuff
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 04:08 PM

New to Mr Red

Information about possible problems relating to whether Win98SE is appropriate for a given machine may be found in Microsoft Knowledge Base article "Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition General.txt File Contents" (Q234856).

You can also find this same information on any Win98SE insatallation CD, in the file named "General.txt."

There are no identified problems specifically related to processor speed.

Win98SE is intended for use with processors that conform to the "instruction set" for Intel Pentium processors of certain types. Other processor manufacturers have "emulated the instruction set" to make their processors compatible with Windows. There are a few known "nonconformance issues" with some non-Intel processors, but none that are considered "significant" except in cases of some specific "professional" software packages - not likely to be encountered by anyone who's not already informed.

Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) who supply Windows with new machines are permitted to make changes to Windows to make it work better with their own machine. Windows purchased "over the counter" from Microsoft should run on any machine using the Intel instruction set. An OEM Windows "copied" from its original machine to another machine - even from the same manufacturer - may have some problems - but only the manufacturer can tell you anything about this (and probably won't know anything relevant).

Knowledge Base Article "Windows Me/98/95 Do Not use Multiple Processors" (Q193645) gives a clarification of "multiple processor" support in different versions of Windows. This issue as been the basis for the claim, by some poorly informed "techs," that earlier versions "aren't right for really fast machines."

WinME/98/98SE/95 will not automatically use more than one processor in a multi-processor machine unless the running program is written to use more than one. WinNT, and probably Win2000, and WinXP, will use multiple processors if needed, without requiring a program to "call for" a multi-thread operation. The "catch" here is that there are very few times when multi-threading is really useful unless a specific program is written to use it - so for the majority of users there is not "real" difference.

Knowledge Base Article "Deciding Whether to Upgrade from Windows 95 or Windows 98 to Windows 2000" (Q256070) has additional information that may be of help. Note that this article is "Pre-XP."

I have not seen any problem with "high speed" machines identified by any "authoritative" source. (Of course - I don't read everything.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: ABOUT Windows 98 SE and stuff
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 05:02 PM

I just want to clarify something. Windows does use a temp directory, usualy c:\windows\temp to store temporary files but the swap file for Windows virtual memory is win386.swp. This file needn't even be on the same drive as the temp directory.

Jon

Subject: RE: Tech: ABOUT Windows 98 SE and stuff
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 05:55 PM

Good point Jon.

Most Windows programs (i.e. Word, Excel) also make a temp file in the directory from which the original file is opened, and may pile up "autobackup" files there and/or in Win\Temp. Now if it'd just close them all reliably.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: ABOUT Windows 98 SE and stuff
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 07:06 PM

Every Windoze user needs to book mark this site..

http://www.annoyances.org/

enjoy eh!

;-)

Subject: RE: Tech: ABOUT Windows 98 SE and stuff
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 07:13 PM

Great site, Clinton

Thanks for the 'eyes-up'

ps totally agree with you on the Rankin Family, and as for WYSIWYG...

Subject: RE: Tech: ABOUT Windows 98 SE and stuff
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 07:33 PM

John, most of this is just to do with using Win98 and any other Win OS (only 3.11, 95 and 98SE at home) I use but can we summarise the following?

Windows, although it has made improvements in later releases has tended to have failings in its own internal memory handling.

These problems are compounded by poor application programming (which most likely means a specific program causes a problem doing something) and some, argaubly the most severe resource issuses are likely to at least involve failures at application programming level (even if that program may be MS Word).

Applications may use disk space, typically in the temp directory to create "working files" and "backups" and that these files are not always deleted, particularly when the system crashes.

The OS itself maintains a swap area of its own to move contents from hardware memory to disk to enble the system to use more (at times significantly more) memory than the system has availible in hardware memory and that this area may require a contigious space on the hard disk.

That probably the most important issue in all of the above as far as a user is concerned is to perform regular system maintainence, i.e. clear out unwanted files and to defrag the hard disk(s).

Jon

Subject: RE: Tech: ABOUT Windows 98 SE and stuff
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 12:11 AM

Jon -

Good summary. The questions about memory leaks came up in the question from Joe about why the DT locks up when he uses it for "a long time." Several of us have commented about the possiblility that accumulating trash on hard drives can cause - or at least contribute to the kind of problem described.

This is not a problem unique to Windows, but in other OP systems, it's usually clear that the problem is with a specific application. The fact that Windows, in all its various flavors, does try to give programs the resources they need may disguise the source of a "hang."

Good maintenance, especially keeping disks clean, is one key. Understanding a little of how Win programs work, - sometimes in spite of what Mickey tells you - can at least make the "glitches" easier to handle and thus more tolerable.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: ABOUT Windows 98 SE and stuff
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 04:36 AM

"Ask Sam" does automatically clear the screen if you leave it running, but usually opening the window and clicking in it will redisplay the screen.

Subject: RE: Tech: ABOUT Windows 98 SE and stuff
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 05:06 AM

Dave -

What you're referring to sounds like a "sleep mode." Most newer computers can do this for you - regardless of what program you're running, if you set them up to do it. A few programs have the feature built in also, but it's usually an indication of an "older" program - from the days before the operating systems took care of "power management."

The "clearing" that we've been discussing is all of those blocks of RAM and "temporary files" on your hard drive - that sometimes don't get deleted when a program is done with them. They clog up the works, and can make things lock up, or just run a lot slower than they should.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: ABOUT Windows 98 SE and stuff
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 06:37 PM


The "ultimate joy and goodness" attained by keeping one's hard drive defragmented has been duly noted, both in the previous comments in this thread, and in many other "Tech" threads. Quite a few people have indicated that they have a really tough time getting through a defrag. Various 'catters (and guests) have suggested a number of "things you can close" to speed up the defrag - mostly good suggestions, but a few somewhat questionable.

Microsoft Knowledge Base article Q186978 "Drive's Contents Have Changed: Restarting..." Message When You Use the Disk Defragmenter Tool. gives a couple of simple(?) ways to "clean start" your machine so that defrag doesn't keep "cycling."

Recommended: Use the clicky to read the article, and print it for future reference.

For those who really want just the "quicky:"

START - PROGRAMS - ACCESSORIES - SYSTEM TOOLS - SYSTEM INFORMATION

On the System Information TOOLS menu, click SYSTEM CONFIGURATION UTILITY

On the GENERAL tab, click SELECTIVE STARTUP, and "Clear" check boxes for:
Process Config.sys File (if available)
Process Autoexec.bat File (if available)
Process Winstart.bat File (if available)
Process System.ini File
Process Win.ini File
Load Startup Group Items

This amounts to "clear all the boxes," in most cases.

When you click OK your machine will tell you when to reboot - and you will then be in "clean" (and dumb) mode. Run Defrag (START - PROGRAMS - ACCESSORIES - SYSTEM TOOLS - Disk Defragmenter if you've forgotten).

When defrag finishes, go back to SYSTEM CONFIGURATION UTILITY - GENERAL TAB and click NORMAL STARTUP - OK. Reboot when prompted.

The alternate procedure is to boot to SAFE Mode to run defrag. If you're feeling "wonkish" that's ok, but most people don't find operating in Safe Mode very "friendly."

There is a DOS version of defrag, and it can be run if you boot to DOS, but there have been reports of its "losing long file name" information.

Note that if your disk is badly fragmented, it can still take quite a while to run a first (or first few) defrag. Don't be discouraged - it gets better once you get it in better shape.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: ABOUT Windows 98 SE and stuff
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 07:06 PM

John, I've found Norton's Speed Disk (part of Norton Utilities) to be a faster and more effective defragmenter than the one that comes with Windows. Some articles I've read in computer magazines agree with this. Apparently one thing it does is to look at how often each of your applications is used and then position them on the disk to maximize the speed and efficiency of loading them. And as long as I turn off my screensaver it doesn't seem to get stuck in the "restarting" loops like the Windows defragmenter does. Besides, I like all the pretty colors on the graphic!

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: Tech: ABOUT Windows 98 SE and stuff
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 10:34 PM

Mark -

I'd agree that Norton does a good job, but it's also an "extra cost" add-on.

A quick(?) test of the clean boot setup from the Mickey$oft KB indicates:

It does an effective but extremely dumb defrag. It boots without any "startup" programs that might generate "restarts," but doesn't eliminate all restarts, since crud on the disk can still "change disk contents."

It moves the first "fragmented file" to the end of the disk, and then moves each and every file one at a time, to fill in the gaps.

In normal Windows mode, you can select "optimize," and a "normal" Windows defrag will relocate files to improve performance - as with the Norton that Mark mentioned. In "clean boot" mode, it's just a brute force "close the gaps" defrag.

Recommendation would be to find the programs that interferes, and turn them off while you use normal Windows defrag. If you can't get through a defrag - as some catters have indicated - use the clean boot and apply a significant measure of patience.

Once the disk is fairly clean, you should not need "special measures" if you do regular maintenance.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: ABOUT Windows 98 SE and stuff
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 10:53 PM

By the way, I did use the Windows defragger on my office computer, on which I hadn't yet installed Norton Utilities, and it did work, eventually, even with all the "disk contents changed" restarts. If you want to go the Windows route, I'd recommend turning off your screensaver and any program that automatically comes on at a preset time, disconnect from the Internet, start the defragment program, then go out to dinner or a session or take a nap. Eventually, the program should finish its work. But it's a lot longer than watching a pot boil.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: Tech: ABOUT Windows 98 SE and stuff
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 Jun 02 - 01:29 AM

Gee Mark -

I just finished running a defrag on 5 drives (about 40GB total) in a total elapsed time of about 18 minutes.

(Of course that little test using the "clean boot" configuration took 3:23 on the first of the 5, and a "normal" rerun took about an hour.)

The four "data" drives that I had cleaned up about a month ago went very quickly. The "system" drive - in the test run - took longer than usual, because the "dumb" defrag used by that mode insisted on moving every file on the disk, and then - of course - rerunning "my" normal defrag took about an hour - because it put a lot of stuff back where it was to begin with - to "optimize" the drive.

The Q-note is/was intended for those who can't get defrag to run to completion. Once it's got a drive organized, it shouldn't be needed - unless you neglect to run occasionally.

John