Original Sender : "DasaMan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------- Etiskah mem-forward mail yang berisi iklan ke sebuah milis? Gue capek ngeditnya nih :P From: Fred Langa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >An easier-to read, formatted, HTML version is available for online reading at http://www.langa.com/whats_new.htm > >LangaList advertising rates and info available at >http://www.langa.com/rate_card.html > >Please email the LangaList to a friend! >(Use the super-fast form at http://www.langa.com/recommend.htm !) > > > The LangaList > 20-Sept-99 > > A Free Email Newsletter from Fred Langa About BrowserTune, > HotSpots, Columns, Tips & Tricks, and Other Activities > > In This Issue: > What About Windows' Cache? > Something That *Will* Definitely Help Speed Windows > And What About WordPerfect? > Update on the "Java Update" > Two Ways To Win > Sneaky DOS Shortcuts > Y2K-AOK! > Just For Grins > More! > > >What About Windows' Cache? > >Responding to the current (and ongoing) discussion on >virtual memory (the "swapfile") on the WinMag site, reader >Victor Werbin wrote: > > Virtual memory settings are only half of the > puzzle. The Cache is the other (and in my mind, > more important) setting to play with. As far as > I'm concerned it is ridiculous that windows sucks > up most of your memory to store files that it > thinks you are going to use and then when you > actually need memory it starts swapping stuff to > disk to free up memory that would have been there > waiting for you if it hadn't stolen it in the > first place. > > Limiting the cache did far more to increase my > performance than setting a permanent swapfile did. > I don't know where you change this setting in > Win98, but in 95 it is done in the sys.ini file. > I can't remember my rational for using the > settings that I used, but here is what my entry in > sys.ini looks like: > > [vcache] > MinFileCache=512 > MaxFileCache=6144 > > I notice that at the 98lite site on this page > http://www.98lithttp://e.net/perform.html under > the second chart they show that a normal tweaking > for them includes a vcache min and max of 4096. > Maybe you have discussed this issue before, if not > I think you might investigate and come up with > some recommendations. Keep up the good work. I've > gotten some great info from you. Thanks, Victor > >Indeed, there may be something to this; Microsoft >acknowledges that the Windows cache gets bogged down after >long periods of file activity. (See >http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q238/5/48.ASP; >thanks to WinMag guru Dave Methvin for pointing this >out.) So, in theory, changing the cache size should limit >the amount of "paging" (swapping out chunks, or "pages" of >memory). > >But on the other hand, Microsoft also says this: > > Changing the cache size is not a good method of > limiting paging. Paging through the cache would > quickly overwhelm it and make it useless for other > file I/O. Although swap file I/O operations do not > go through the cache, memory-mapped files and > executable files do. The cache, however, is > designed to make sure it cannot be overwhelmed by > such I/O operations. > > Changing the cache size (even if you could) > probably would not have much effect on paging. The > cache grows and shrinks as needed. If the system > begins to page a lot, the cache shrinks > automatically. However, people often think they > are seeing a lot of paging, but they are really > seeing other disk activity, such as Windows 98 > building its icon cache or the cache lazy writing. > >So, which is right--- Microsoft's "wouldn't have much >effect" or the anecdotal evidence of some users that >manually setting the cache sizes does help? I'm trying some >of the new settings myself using an automated freeware tool, >and I hope some of you will do so, too. Either way, join in >the very active discussion area at >http://www.winmag.com/columns/fred/1999/0913.htm and share >your results; I'll be posting mine on Monday! > > >Something That *Will* Definitely Help Speed Windows > >WinAlign and MapCache are Microsoft tools "designed to >optimize the performance of executable code (binaries) on >the Windows 98 platform." WinAlign works by adjusting your >EXE files so they're stored on disk in a way that mimics how >they'll be stored in RAM, when you run them. (Many EXEs are >shipped pre-aligned, but this tool can take care of the >rest). Once the EXEs are aligned, MapCache (which runs >automatically as part of Win98) then can operate at top >efficiency. > >If you have the full $70 Win98 Resource Kit, you already >have a copy of WinAlign and all the supporting information >you need to use it. > >For everyone else, Windows Magazine offers a free tool >called WMalign that can do much the same thing as WinAlign, >except it won't cost you $70. <g> > >You'll find full info, a download, and instructions---all >for free--- here: >http://www.winmag.com/library/1999/0301/fea0052a.htm > Sekarang gue lagi mencoba program ini... siapa tahu Quake2 dapat berjalan lebih cepat :P DOH! > > >What About WordPerfect? > >Commenting on my recent coverage of the free-for-the- >download StarOffice from Sun (see >http://www.informationweek.com/langaletter) a reader asked >"Fred why the hell haven't you (and by extension, your >colleagues) shown the same enthusiasm towards WP?" > >StarOffice has been around for years. I had little >enthusiasm for it in the past because, beyond personal >evaluation copies, it was an expensive commercial product >offered by a small company of uncertain solidity. It's hard >to recommend a pricey product with an uncertain future >unless that product is clearly light-years ahead of the >product it's trying to replace. StarOffice comes close to >being a tier-one suite; it's not as good as MS Office, but >it's free, and it's now backed by Sun. Those two new facts >make a huge difference: because SO is free and backed by a >major company, one can look past the hassles of conversion >and the product's imperfections. > >WordPerfect costs a couple hundred bucks and is from a >company with an uncertain future. In fact, WP's own future >has been decidedly uncertain ever since the Novell days. As >I said, it's hard to recommend a pricey product with an >uncertain future unless that product is clearly light-years >ahead of the product it's trying to replace. WP is a decent >office suite, but it's not light years ahead of anything. > >If WP were picked up by, say, IBM or Apple and offered for >free, or even if Corel offered it for free, that would be >different. But as long as it costs a couple hundred bucks >and is from a company with an uncertain future, I'm hard- >pressed to commend it. > >But your mileage may vary. Come add your voice to the >ongoing discussion at >http://www.informationweek.com/langaletter ! > Nanya: emang dulu StarOffice harganya berapa sih? Kalo yang for Linux itu gratis apa bayar? > >Update on the "Java Update" > >Several issues ago, I told you about a potentially major >security hole in Microsoft's Java implementation. (See >http://www.langa.com/newsletters/Sept-2-99.htm#bug1 ) >Microsoft initially issued a full-blown (6MB) replacement >for the entire Java subsystem, and followed up with a much >smaller Windows Update patch that simply altered your >existing Java setup. > >Reader George Combos did some digging and found the >following: > > The 161 KB JVM patch on the WU site is version > 3167. The 6 MB JVM update (full package) at > http://www.microsoft.com/java/vm/dl_vm32.htm is > version 3186. > > When a Win98/98 SE user goes to WU > (windowsupdate.microsoft.com) after upgrading with > JVM 3186 full package, the ActiveX engine that > searches the user's computer for installed updates > shows only the JVM patch 3167 [161 KB] as > uninstalled (critical upgrade). > > Therefore I believe Win98/98 SE users need to > install both, the JVM 3186 full set first, and > only after that go to WU to get the small JVM 3167 > patch. The 3167 patch is not available (yet) as a > separate download from the MS JVM page, and > Win95/IE5 users cannot install it. :( > > Also, if a Win98/98 SE user goes to WU without > having JVM 3186 (full) installed, it also shows > this one as a critical upgrade. > > Keep up the excellent work! Sincerely, George > Gombos > >Interesting, George! I'm not sure you'd need both---if >you've added the full version, then adding the small patch >probably wouldn't add any functionality. It might, however, >stop the Update site from telling you you needed a "critical >update." > >Anyway, with the version numbers, now readers can see which >version, if any, they've upgraded to. (Use the techniques >described in http://www.langa.com/newsletters/Sept-2- >99.htm#bug1 to get your Java VM version number.) > > >Sneaky DOS Shortcuts > >Most Windows users know that the Desktop, Start Menu, and >such are just ways of looking at standard directories on >your hard drive. The complete contents of your Desktop are >actually in \windows\desktop, for example. The complete >contents of your Start Menu resides in \windows\start menu, >and so on. > >Because of this, you can use old-style DOS shortcuts to >navigate around. For example, in DOS, typing a period (".") >was a shorthand way of referring to the current directory. >Two periods were a shortcut to the directory one level up >from where you are; a backslash by itself ("\") represented >the topmost directory; and so on. > >You can use these shortcuts in the Start Menu's Run line. If >you type a period in the Run line and click OK, you'll see >an alternate view of your Desktop. Type two periods and >click OK and you'll see the \windows directory, which is >"one level up" from the Start menu. Or, type "\" (without >the quotes) and you'll be at the top-level directory. >You also can use these DOS shortcuts in the Explorer's >address bar. > >Try 'em--- you may save yourself some pointing and clicking! > > >Y2K-AOK! > >Reader "Irene" tried the 5-step do-it-yourself Y2K test >article I wrote about a while ago. (See >http://www.winmag.com/library/1999/0101/fea0061.htm ) Her >results may be interesting to anyone who hasn't tested their >system yet: > > Hey Fred: > > Despite your warnings and encouragements, I > procrastinated and delayed the task of peeking > inside this mystery machine of mine to determine > whether or not it was Y2K-Ok. Fear was a major > deterrent -- fear of screwing up the computer and > fear that I would find out that I was Y2K-NotOk. > > Add to the mix the fact that just the thought of > doing anything without the benefit of Windows > caused me to age well beyond my years. I had > thought BIOS were paragraphs in the back of a book > that told you about the author. > > That said - guess what? I did it. I finally > decided to give it a go. I had read your pleadings > for many months, so I went to the referenced > WinMag page and followed the directions. I was > terrified. My heart was pounding as the thought of > my computer imploding was forefront in my mind. > I expect that the majority of your readers are > more techno-savvy than I am and would scoff > heartily at me. However, for those few who are in > the same position, please continue to remind them > and to let them know that if I can venture, albeit > briefly, into the windowless world and return > safely, then perhaps they could do it also. > Keep up the great work. Thanks, Irene > >Glad it worked for you, Irene. The 5-step test is fast, >free, and actually more accurate than some of the commercial >Y2K-compliance tests I've seen. Plus, it doesn't try to sell >you anything (the way many Y2K test suites do, using fear to >make you want to update your hardware or software). > >Y2K testing can be easy, free, and take only a few minutes! >With only 14 weeks to the Y2K deadline, if you haven't yet >tested your system, you really ought to now. Check it out at >http://www.winmag.com/library/1999/0101/fea0061.htm . > > >Just For Grins > >George Tullius sends along this tune (sung to the melody of >"Home on the Range"); the lyrics were attributed to one >Peggy Ben-Fay Hu: > > VERSE: > Oh give me a site where the links all work right > one that doesn't take too long to load -- > where the text can be seen on my 13-inch screen -- > one that offers a "no-Java" mode. > > REFRAIN: > Home, home on the Web, on my 486 IBM. > Please take pity on me -- I'm still on Netscape 3 > with a 14.4-speed modem! > > VERSE: > Though your video files give your pages some style > I can't read them upon my PC; > Massive graphics and sound crash my system, I've found, > so please put in some "alt" tags for me! > > (REFRAIN) > > VERSE: > Please don't ask me to "chat" with your favorite cat; > I don't have an IRC code. > And don't ask me to buy games for Win 95 -- > My PC is way too darn old! > > (REFRAIN) > > >See you next issue! > >Best, > >Fred > >([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >SUBSCRIBE (it's free!): Send email to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dasa - ICQ: 10195313 Yesterday it worked. Today it is not working. Windows is like that. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Compu-Mania MailingList is provided by PT Centrin Utama Maintained by : [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Post a msg : Send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe : Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] BODY : unsubscribe Compu-Mania For more information, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "HELP" in the BODY of your mail (without quote). ----------------------------------------------------------------
