AltBinz: Resource hog

[Rekrul]

I've been using Binary News Reader 2 for NZB downloading, but I've always been annoyed by its quirks. Several people praised AltBinz so I decided to try it. I checked the site and didn't see anything that said it wouldn't work under Windows 98SE, so I downloaded the Zip file and unpacked it.

Unfortnately the first time I ran it, it caused my system to crash. More specifically, it caused every other program to start failing, parts of menus to be left on the screen, etc. I couldn't even open the Task Manager and had to hit the reset button.

Since I've seen this kind of thing happen before, I ran FreeRAM XP Pro and sure enough, AltBinz is eating up over a quarter of the system's resources. Specifically, it uses 26% of the system resources and 32% of the GDI resources. By comparison, Binary News Reaper 2 only uses 6% system and 11% GDI.

Technically it works under Windows 98SE (and probably ME), but it's not practical to use if you intend to do anything else while you download. You might want to put that info in the FAQ.

[Claude]

It's 2008!!!.

Isn't it time you upgraded your 10 years old os?

Grab yourself a copy of windows 2000 at least...

Win98 is so buggy to begin with do yourself a BIG favor and drop win98.

[sp4zzj4zz]

I hate for this to be my first post here, but seriously, I just can't pass this one up...

Rekrul : Are you also sporting 128MB of RAM to go along with that Win98SE?

(giggles)

[kC_]

can w98 manage 128mb?

[Nuttyguy]

I checked the site and didn't see anything that said it wouldn't work under Windows 98SE

wow.  People still run 98?

[Rekrul]

It's 2008!!!.

Isn't it time you upgraded your 10 years old os?

Why?

Seriously, the most compelling reason to upgrade seems to be the fact that everyone else has upgraded. Some people even use the argument that Microsoft no longer supports it. Well of course not! Their entire business is based on getting people to buy the same thing over and over again, whether they need it or not.

Grab yourself a copy of windows 2000 at least...

Win98 is so buggy to begin with do yourself a BIG favor and drop win98.

So I gain stability and lose compatibility with many of the older games I have.

I hate for this to be my first post here, but seriously, I just can't pass this one up...

Rekrul : Are you also sporting 128MB of RAM to go along with that Win98SE?

(giggles)

I have 512MB and a 1.8Ghz CPU.

can w98 manage 128mb?

Yes, and with a simple change to the system.ini file, it can support even more than 512MB.

I checked the site and didn't see anything that said it wouldn't work under Windows 98SE

wow.  People still run 98?

Yes. It works fine with my DSL, plays DVDs, burns DVDs, plays downloaded AVI files, runs (admittedly older) games, runs most P2P applications, etc.

As I type this in Firefox, Binary News Reaper 2 is busy using four connections to download a series of fairly large video files from the newsgroups. I just burned the last batch of files to DVD a little while ago, and when this batch is done, I'll be burning them as well. Until then, I'll be watching some videos I downloaded on my TV and recording them for a friend who doesn't have a computer.

All on my horribly outdated, antique OS.

[kC_]

possibly change this threads title too:
"win98 has crap memory management and altbinz doesnt work with it"

its not the fault of altbinz, its yours.. your running it on an old os that its not tested or designed for.
i would guess that a lot of applications written nowadays are tested mainly for xp/vista... win98 wouldnt get a moments notice...

stick to your binary news reader2 if it works, or have a look elsewhere for old versions of win98 compatible newsreaders.. 

also even your old 1.8ghz cpu and 512mb would run XP easily, and does have functions for OS compatibility
e.g - you could run a game and select "run in win98 compatibility mode"
 

[noons]

Rekrul I think you need to read up on the changes that have gone on since the NT based versions of windows. Memory management alone would make me upgrade. When I got a license to 2000 I never looked back at 98. Maybe its time with thoughs specs to at least find a cheap copy of 2000 or get xp. Hell you could upgrade your memory to a gig once you get xp and you would see a huge performance increase. There is no reason anyone should be still running 98.

Oh by the way that simple change to the .ini file you were talking about really doesnt work too well because the kernel still cant address that memory properly.

[Rekrul]

I know this is old, but I don't come here that often...

possibly change this threads title too:
"win98 has crap memory management and altbinz doesnt work with it"

its not the fault of altbinz, its yours.. your running it on an old os that its not tested or designed for.
i would guess that a lot of applications written nowadays are tested mainly for xp/vista... win98 wouldnt get a moments notice...

It's AltBinz's use of custom UI graphics and elements that causes it to eat up so many of the W98 resources.

True story: While looking for a better binary downloader, I decided to try out Newsleecher. The front page of the site says that it works with 98, so I downloaded the latest version. It gave me all sorts of errors. When I posted this to the forum, I was told that the latest version was no longer compatible with 98, despite what the front page says. I was told which version was the last to not require XP. I downloaded it and it did run, but it ate up about half the system resources. I had to skip back to version 1.0 to get one that wasn't a resource hog. Is this because the newer versions have tons of great new features? No, it's because the author basically went nuts with the eye-candy in the UI, adding lots of pointless animations and such that do nothing to enhance the functionality of the program. Sure, there are small improvements, but nothing that couldn't have been added without making it into a resource hog.

also even your old 1.8ghz cpu and 512mb would run XP easily, and does have functions for OS compatibility
e.g - you could run a game and select "run in win98 compatibility mode"

Which doesn't always work.

Rekrul I think you need to read up on the changes that have gone on since the NT based versions of windows. Memory management alone would make me upgrade. When I got a license to 2000 I never looked back at 98. Maybe its time with thoughs specs to at least find a cheap copy of 2000 or get xp. Hell you could upgrade your memory to a gig once you get xp and you would see a huge performance increase. There is no reason anyone should be still running 98.

I've used maybe three different systems that had XP on them. All of them had specs that were either equal to my system or that exceeded it. Every one of them felt slow and laggy compared to my system. They took longer to boot, programs took longer to load, etc. On one of them, I attempted to turn off the various auto-run actions for when you insert a CD/DVD. I went through the options twice and set every single one of them to "No action". Know what happened when I put a disc in the drive? "What would you like to do with this disc?" Why do the buttons on the taskbar play musical chairs every time you run something? Then there's the whole "Big Brother" aspect with activation and WGA...

I'll get a new system eventually and I suppose I'll be forced to use XP (I'm not touching Vista with a ten foot pole), but for now I have 98SE.

[msnippe]

I'm sorry, but you can't expect developers to support a product, that Microsoft doesn't even support anymore.

[Rekrul]

I'm sorry, but you can't expect developers to support a product, that Microsoft doesn't even support anymore.

Oh yes, the all-important "Microsoft doesn't support it" argument. Know what? If they thought they could get away with it, they'd drop XP support tomorrow. Why? It's called Planned Obsolescence and their entire business model is based on it. They NEED people to dump what they have and buy something new, even if they don't really need it. Without that, their whole business plan falls down.

If the developers don't want to support older versions of the OS, is it too much to ask that they state that somewhere on the web page? Something like "This program was only tested on XP. It may work on older versions of Windows, but we can't guarantee it." Or here's an idea; They could find someone on the net who has older versions of Windows, ask them to test it, and then put that information in the FAQ.

Instead the AltBinz FAQ says;

What are the system requirements?

A computer, a pulse and a few brain cells. Although Alt.Binz is so easy to use, even the pulse may be optional.

I have a computer, according to my doctor, I have a pulse and, your opinion of my OS choice notwithstanding, I have a few brain cells. So AltBinz should work for me. Technically it does, but it's completely impractical to use under 98. It's like saying you can replace a car battery with a wall power adaptor. Sure, it would technically work, but you're not going to be able to drive anywhere with a power cord tethering you to an outlet.

The FAQ should reflect this. Actually, it should be mentioned right on the web site.

[Rdl]

So AltBinz doesn't work for you. Use something else... EOD