Zugg Software :: View topic - Note regarding zMUD speed and other issues

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2002 9:05 pm

I saw a post to another thread regarding the speed of zMUD and the so-called "bloat" factor that I decided to respond to. But I wanted to create a new topic for this discussion instead of getting the other thread off topic.

Yes, newer versions of zMUD take much longer to start up then old versions. There are a couple of reasons for this:

a) Any version of zMUD using eLicense (which means v6.10 and later) requires that the ZMUD.EXE file be decrypted by eLicense before Windows can load it. Decrypting a large program takes some time.

b) Even newer versions of zMUD (v6.2x and later) use the ADO/MDAC database engine built into Windows for handling database stuff like the MUD database, character database, and new mapper database (ironically, not the database module itself yet). For whatever reason, Windows is slow to load ADO.

But I'll be honest...I could care less how long it takes to start up zMUD. What I care about is how fast zMUD is once it is running and connected to a MUD. And the recent benchmarks show that zMUD 6.x is almost twice as fast as older versions, depending upon what scripts and triggers you have running. There are very few clients that can match the trigger processing and text scrolling speed of zMUD. *THATS* whats important, not the fact that it takes an extra second to load zMUD in the first place.

So, when comparing speed, I hope you compare the things that really matter. You are only going to start zMUD once or twice a day, but you are going to spend hours connected to a MUD.

Then there is this so-called "bloat" that some people keep talking about. I honestly don't know where this comes from either. Yes, the EXE size keeps getting a bit bigger, and the memory requirements are a bit larger. What do you want me to do instead, just ignore all of your suggestions and never add any more new features to zMUD? If you want a plain boring MUD client that never gets any better, then go away and use some freebie client. The majority of users of zMUD who paid their $25 enjoy seeing new features for free, especially features that they asked for themselves. That's called "VALUE" not bloat. You call it bloat if new features cause zMUD to slow down (like some Microsoft products). But as I've already mentioned, when actually playing a MUD, the new beta versions of zMUD are far faster than any previous version, even with all of the new features.

Memory is another issue. Of course zMUD is going to take up more memory and more resources. That's one way to improve the speed. After all, if your computer has lots of memory, why not use it? Otherwise it's just a waste to have it. So, things like the mapper database will use more memory to cache the database and speed up operations. Sure, I could prevent it from using this memory, and then it would just be slower. So, I don't understand this complaint at all. It's not a race to see who can have the smallest EXE file or smallest memory usage, it's a matter of which program gets the job done better. In this case, the job is MUD playing and zMUD does this as efficiently as anyone while providing more features than any other client.

Finally, some people talk about there being other clients just as powerful as zMUD. Where? I don't see any. I keep up with all of the latest development, and all I see are some "wannabe" clients that keep stealing ideas from zMUD and implementing them less efficiently, and are harder to use. I actually care about user interface and novice users. I'm not just going to pile features into zMUD and make them hard to use. That's how other clients get away with being small...they don't provide a good user interface for their features. User interface is what also takes up memory and makes the EXE file bigger. Creating windows with lots of buttons and other widgets uses up Windows resources. If all zMUD had was a command line and powerful scripting language, then yes, zMUD would be small. But then none of the novice users would be able to use it. And I care about *all* users. I add advanced stuff like COM programming and yet still pay attention to making the mapper more useable by new users.

So, sorry if I sound insulted, but I am. I dislike "trolls" who come over here and make unsubstantiated claims about speed, bloat, or some other client with no hard numbers. I've seen hard numbers and they don't agree with you.

One of the numbers I like to look at is sales. Even though sales are down, I'm still getting 10 zMUD sales PER DAY. Nobody else can come close to that. I've talked with another MUD client developers that charge and maintain active development like zMUD, and their sales number are 1/10th of zMUD sales. So, obviously I'm making some people happy out there. Sure, it's easy to throw together some freebie open source MUD client and try to compete. But there are a lot of people who want the support and ease-of-use that comes with the power of zMUD. I've been doing this for 7 years, which is longer than any other client out there. And zMUD will always be around, as other clients come and go when their developers get "real" jobs or graduate from school. Nobody else is doing this as a full-time business and that's one of the advantages that you have with zMUD.

Oh, and regarding cracks...haven't seen anything for the later beta versions of zMUD. In fact, haven't seen anything that works with anything that I released in the past 9 months or so. And most customers don't find clicking 2 buttons every 90 days to renew their license to be very annoying. But I'm sure the 90 day auto-renewal really does piss off those people who are trying to crack it.

Adept Joined: 09 Nov 2000 Posts: 222 Location: USA

As someone who regularly uses the new version of zMud, as well as an older version, I feel I am in a very good position to comment on the speed/bloat claims made. I use the latest Beta version on my home computer, but I run version 3.62a from work. While I can get away with mudding from work, it's absolutely forbidden to install software, so I use 3.62a from a CDRW. As far as speed differences, it's really not a noticible difference from here. Bloat? I just about cry anytime I try to do any kind of scripting from the old version. I LOVE the power and flexiblity the new versions give me, and that's just NOT there in the older versions.

I think you're doing a GREAT job with this program, Zugg, and hope to keep using it far into the future.

AzCowboy

ps: And yes, most of the complaints I've seen about E-license are pretty obvious that they're coming from people trying to crack the protection. I think kudos should go out to the staff over at E-license for the great work that they've done, too!

Apprentice Joined: 27 Dec 2001 Posts: 105 Location: USA

I agree. Seems to me eLicense was the perfect solution to the piracy problem. I understand the impact piracy has on the product we receive. Two clicks every 3 months is a infanintecimal price to pay, if it saves the time Zugg would have to spend working on security, that he can now spend on developing OUR ideas and OUR requests. That communication, that INVOLVEMENT, in the product alone is worth the $25.

I don't think the new version are bloated in the least. Trying to go back and use the earlier versions is comparable to trying to use Windows 3.1 when you've grown accustomed to Windows XP. Like AzCowboy said, trying to do complicated scripting in anything pre-5.55 is like pulling teeth (no offense intended). I would like to see a scaled-down version of 6.xx that could run on my laptop and still handle the complicated stuff, but maybe without the database, mapper, or debugger, but I really don't mind. I mostly MUD from home, and my main systems all have more memory than I know what to do with. The power of zMUD gives me many more options than anything else could hope to offer.
No wonder you were offended by the post in your previous topic that spawned this one. Even I was bothered by its ignorant statements, and I don't have personal stock in your work. I will always support Zuggsoft projects as long as they are around, not out of blind loyalty, but out of appreciation and respect for the work you put in to it.

Thank you for your time.

Fat Tony

Novice Joined: 16 Oct 2000 Posts: 43 Location: USA

Zugg:

I cry bitter tears when I hear user complaints regarding loading or download speed, resource usage, features, and cost. As a software program manager I am very used to tradeoffs and limitations of current technology, while most users think it's all one big endless supply. Most users thing you really *should* be able to add something like a graphical keyboard mapper to a product and not increase the resource usage, product size, or product cost. It's almost useless explaining to them why the fast-powerful-cheap-pick-two triangle is such a truisim in design.

Yes, a programmer or competitor can make a MUD client faster and consume fewer resources. It would be written in assembler, bypassing the standard Windows libraries, be the smallest, blazingly fast client on the market. It would take ten years to write it using custom tools, the developer would pull out any remaining hair anytime debugging was needed, and adding features would practically mandate a rewrite from scratch each time. Estimated cost for a client like this: perhaps $10,000 per license. No one would buy it, despite setting benchmark records, and the developer would end up broke and insane.

A developer could also improve load time the same way that Microsoft and Quicken do: they cheat by preloading a library of common DLL's via the Startup group when the user logs in. That way the app "starts fast," but login times are slower. The speed hit comes somewhere, and frankly I don't mind waiting for an app to load up the necessary libraries on startup if it performs quickly otherwise.

Zugg, I've admired your ability to keep adding new features, improve the usability and functionality, and keeping the basics user-friendly and affordable. You are responsive to user requests and consider all feedback, good and bad, with seriousness and forethought. Take the complaints about speed, bloat, and features with a grain of salt, especially when they come from people not familiar with software design. After all, you can put a big hurkin' engine into a dragster and have it fly like blazes, but just try to get it to turn at speed. (grin)

--Xymog

Wizard Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 1551 Location: Australia

I would be most disappointed if Zugg had to remove features to cure the so called bloat.

Sure, I don't use the database plugin, but I certainly know that a lot of you do. And whilst you may not use the mapper, I wouldn't play mud if I didn't have it.

Perhaps Zugg could ideally make it all modular, each feature in a different plugin, but I would be fairly hesitant about that... think that might impact more on speed than the extra memory usage.

And I just laugh at people who complain about the hard drive footprint of zmud. Oh no! If I have Zmud installed I'll only have 79.9 gigs free! Woe is me!

Instead of worrying about the space zmud takes up, how about looking at your internet explorer cache? I think you'll be surprised. If you don't tick the 'delete all offline content', you'll find that even if you clear the cache IE just hides the files, doesn't actually remove them from your hard drive.

I cleared my cache last week, and don't browse the web much, yet doing a dir /a /s inside the temporary internet files directory reveals 60 megs in 8838 files.

In comparison, I've had Zmud installed for a year on this PC, have two maps at about 8megs each, and it takes less space than my weeks worth of browser cache.

Now lets look at the memory manager. Oh look, Zmud uses 3 megs of RAM. Hmm what else am I running. Oh you mean that 'explorer' has two processes, consuming 24 megs of RAM total. And outlook express? varies a bit, but around 8 megs of RAM when used. Hrm, what else... Trillian (more compact than ICQ and MSN yet offers the features of both) 12 megs. Winamp's sitting a 5 megs. Lets see, browsing this page only, internet explorer is using 12 megs. And of course norton antivirus is consuming about 8 megs.

So you say 'apples vs apples'.

Well. Here's what I did:
Set the memory to 10000 lines.
Maximized Zmud (on a 1600x1200 monitor).
Quit Zmud. Start Zmud.
Open a blank window.
Take Memory Reading 1
Minimize
Take Memory Reading 2
Restore
Take Memory Reading 3

Here's the results:

                 MEM1    MEM2    MEM3  


4.62 (32bit) :   4.9mb   1.0mb   1.6mb


% of 32 meg  :    15%      3%      5%

Zmud 6.37a   :  16.1mb   1.4mb   2.7mb


% of 128 meg :    13%      1%      2%

At the time of 4.62 being released, 32 meg RAM was standard.
At the time of 6.37a being released, 128 meg RAM was standard.

So in conclusion, I have to say that the new version of Zmud is *LESS* bloated than the old based on average system configurations of the time that the program was made. So if your system isn't up to the spec, throw in a bit more ram, do a defrag of your hard drive, or trim down on the extra apps running in the background (icq, msn, real player, gater, etc). All those programs that run in the background next to your clock on the system tray have an impact on your system too.

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

I say thumbs up Zugg, you're doing a top job... don't you dare stop :)

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2002 9:26 am

Yes its a great client.
Yes it gets bigger, but thats understandable like you said, new features = new code = bigger files, nothing wrong with that.
For some reason I've never had to renew my license at all, (been running on that computer for at least two years now), strange, not that Im complaining :)

(The crack was for 6.16 by the way, just asked.. but he gave up trying to use it ;)

I can see why people (including me :) would complain about the time it takes to start up, you know why? Cos its the only thing left to complain about! Id advise you to appreciate this fact and see it as a cause to be happy :)

Personally though, Id love to see/use a 'light' version of zMUD.. I dont use at least half of the features, Im not your average (?) power-player who likes botting and quest-scripting and all that stuff.. I just want a map, to colour a few lines, make some multiline aliases, and thats it. (And thats what zmud had when I started using it ;)

Probably its ADO starting that takes about a minute (not seconds) to start on my emulated machine.. hohum..

No, Ive not see any other clients that as powerful as zmud, wasnt there a site somewhere which compared mud-client features and such? *think*

Lady C.

(Again, these are not complaints, just facts, and personal views)

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2002 11:21 am

I love zmud, to the point I force everyone I know into using it. It's basic and complex, has an almost intuitive style and relatively easy to configure (setting.dok, anyone?). If someone I know has a problem with a script, its easy to narrow down with the introduction of pretty print. Its fast, solid. Stuff people have already said.

This is where the water muddies :)
Cracks and E-Licence! Admittedly, I'm using a 6.3x release of zMUD illegally. Cracked? Not sure if you could call it that...more of a circumvention, if you will (illegal is illegal, regardless of how I view the process).
Before anyone calls me an evil mongrel for stealing software, remember this - I didnt have to say it, and if theres something we all need more of its honesty. Its a typical story - I've been out of regular work for nearly 6 years, I have various medical problems that hamper my getting back into the workforce (alone each is nothing, but together?), and then theres the cost of the software. Right now, paying for zmud would cost me my "disposable" income for 2 months. Why dont I pay for it? Eating and breathing rank high on my list of priorities :) While it IS relatively cheap, I cant afford to convert us$25 and then pay for the money order to send away. Yes, yes, I am an icky bastard for using something I dont own. Say what you like, but its all nothing I havent seen before.

Anyway. Why dont I like E-Licence? Two reasons, one valid, one semi valid (you choose). Because its IMPOSSIBLE to remove the damned thing. Requiring a full format and install of Windows is not my favourite way to spend a day. Sure, they give you a tool to use for removing it, but it doesnt work. Leaves dead registry entries that are corrupted. A plethora of registry cleaning tools will always fail at a certain malformed registry entry (I've tried alot). Then, the user isnt informed about LicCtrl being installed (no popup window/warning), so then theres a barrage of "zmud wont load!" being screamed daily on almost every mud. LicCtrl doesnt come with a detailed explanation as to why its in your service list. We're always told to disable services we dont know about, services we dont use...and 96% of the time, a "broken zmud" is the result of a disabled LicCtrl. Also I've begun to notice some people declaring "i had a virus but <insert antivirus prog> cleaned it, woohoo!! oh wait, i cant load zmud...", and from my uneducated view it looks like the decryption routine is twigging some heuristics into thinking that its a worm/virus/trojan - causing a self disabling of LicCtrl.

Now dont misread what I'm saying. Piracy sucks. So does pure commercialism (*cough*pvponline*cough*). I dont have a problem with a guy sitting in his house and writing something people pay for...hell, I'm jealous cos I dont have the nouse to do something like this :) I'm just not in a financial position to pay for the program :/ I do try to help people here, and I do try to help other zmud users I know. I tell people its worth paying for, I dont know if they do (i dont share my "technique") or not. Does that make me bad? Maybe :/ Am I an idiot for saying I use a stolen copy of zmud? Damned right I am. I can say it now because as far as I can tell, its undoable anymore with available software.

So there you go. And like a true thieving coward, I'm going to post and run while everyones asleep :) OK, so what, it doesnt have as much relevance in this thread as I'd like, but the guilt thing has been working at me for the last year

Why oh WHY did I have pass door on...

GURU Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 873 Location: USA

quote:

Here's the results:

Turn on the VM column in your task manager. The totals (particularly after minimize/open) are a bit higher if you take that into account. I see zMud still taking up about 19MB total when visible and 18MB when minimized- XP Pro, 512MB, one minimalist off-line connection open.

I'm not arguing with your conclusions, BTW. I just don't want people to get the idea that zMud will take up 80% less memory if they minimize it and open it again

-Tarn

Wizard Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 1551 Location: Australia

That's really cute.. silly microsoft don't even provide a column for total so you gotta manually add it up.

Well, even if the minimized/restored results aren't worth a grain o' salt, the main result - when the apps just started - is still a couple of percent less than the older version.

But sure, if you only got 32 megs on a P200 you probably don't want to be running the newest.

Can't expect 2002 performance out of 1995 hardware :)

-- Rainchild

Novice Joined: 17 Oct 2000 Posts: 38

There is a way to crack zMUD, unfortunately. It's an exploit of the Elicensing software. If you'd like I can PM/Email you with the details on how to reproduce it, so you can nip it in the bud Zugg.

Jerle Minara,
zMUD 6.37a
Win 2k Advanced Server

Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:22 pm

JerleMin, I'd certainly be interested in details on this, but I haven't seen *anything* that works with the latest beta version (soon to be public version) of zMUD. So, make sure what you have seen really works with zMUD 6.38. There are lots of known hacks to previous versions of zMUD, and I just can't worry about those. All I can do it try to add enough new cool content to newer versions so that people want to upgrade.

But if you have something that works with 6.38, I'd certainly be *very* interested in getting the details so that eLicense has a chance to look into it before I release a public version.

Adept Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 224 Location: USA

I have noticed zMUD being slow slow slow! Wait, maybe that is my computer :) It doesn't take long to startup at all, I mean geese, it's less then 10 seconds and that is probably way high, I can wait that long.

As far as the slow comment, pretty sure it's my computer. I have 512MB of ram, but when I have my capture windows and stuff filled, and the main window *think I have it set to hold like 10,000 lines each, and they are usually all filled :)* That is the ONLY time I have noticed zmud being the LEAST bit slow, and once again, that's probably from my comp.

As far as scripting and stuff. I know alot of people who use zmud 5.55 for a reason I am sure Zugg knows well, but the features in the newer versions are just awesome. The Javascript and VBscript alone might be enough for people to switch.

Keep up the good work and keep the improvements coming!

Don't make it much more faster though, it already reacts as fast as I can type :) Don't want it thinking AHEAD of me now do ya! :):):)

Evangelist/Pernius
www.phidar.com/phidar.html

Newbie Joined: 30 Nov 2002 Posts: 8

Ok I'm going to admit it right up front. I was going to use a cracked version of zmud 6.16, but it didn't work. For some reason I decided to cruise on over to this web site and learned a lot I didn't know about zmud. For one thing (at least this is what it sounds like) it's not some company owned by some other bigger company, it's a cool guy that decided to turn what he loves (coding a mud client) into his career. When I use a cracked or pirated version of something else cough_MicrosoftProducts_cough I am not personally hurting the industry any(well in microsoft's case, I hope I am :P ), because if I couldn't get a pirated version of it, I wouldn't buy it at all because I'm poor. Zmud on the other hand, I coulnd't find a cracked version (at least not of newer versions) and luckily I came here and found out that someone would actually benifit from me buying the software.

Speaking as a person that has 99% (previously 100%) of all his software free, I am glad that I wasn't able to get zmud 6.16 for free. (because now I can truthfully say "I do too pay for some of my software!" in conversations, and the reg cost is well worth the money) Plus I'd feal down right awful if I didn't. (or close to awful) Keep up the good work Zugg! I hope more ppl like me can see the light :-P

Newbie Joined: 16 Jul 2002 Posts: 8 Location: USA

zMUD offers so much that people who might consider it bloated simply don't understand this functionality, or are overlooking the complexity. Oddly, it is these people who could best improve thier mudding, they lacking the intitiaive (by admittedly not realizing the weight of code) to find workarounds otherwise. I used Pueblo with Visual Dialog Script pretending to be zMUD, it loaded quickly and was fun, but nothing can compare to the unrestricted supports zMud provides for the imaginative. Anyway my (MHZ) loads the program in seconds. If anything could be said for big old zMUD, it allows for a greater congnizence.

Novice Joined: 17 Oct 2002 Posts: 44 Location: USA

I've been using Zmud for years, but only recently traded up from version 4.62 - and yes, that version was a cracked one. Basically I used it because I had no way to buy one then, and didn't really feel a need for the newer features of the one I have now.

Of course I've been converted. I'd pay $25 multiple times a year for this client and will buy myself a second 'license' for Christmas. It truly is great to use and the more I learn of the scripting power, the better it gets.

As for speed... I run on an 8 gig hard drive and 128 MB RAM w/ Pentium II running Win 98. I constantly struggle to purge the system of unwanted programs that run in the background sucking up RAM. I also go on a bi-monthly trip to delete large files so I can maintain a relatively good 300-700 MB buffer. (I'm not an extremely technical user or I could probably do better. As it is I figure I just barely avoid complete hard drive collapse every week ;).

That said - Zmud takes maybe 30 seconds to load. If there's any slow-down while running I can't notice it. And compared to the previous version I used, scripts run light-years faster. I no longer have crashes every few hours either (due to bugs or the license crack I dunno).

In the end my point is that if I can afford it, and more importantly RUN it without problems in speed or memory, anyone can.

>-Churlant-<

SubAdmin Joined: 18 Nov 2001 Posts: 5182

It gladdens my heart to hear all the people stepping up and admitting they used to use a cracked version, but happily pay now. I have posted before that I happily create cracks for software that I think is overpriced and under-supported. So it is nice to see so many people relizing that zMud is not in that category and is actually in a class by itself.

I can also very happily say that never once did I even want a crack for zMud, in fact it is probably the first piece of software I bought ever. That was about 6-8 years ago, now I have bought 2 more licenses and find myself in a position to give 1 of them away.

Seamer seems the best candidate for it, but anyone that has seen the value of zMud will do. Just send me an email and I will pass that extra license off as an early X-mas present.

Wizard Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 1551 Location: Australia

Very generous of you Vijilante :)

I admit I used the 4.62 version past its 30 day trial, but then paid for it as soon as I got access to a credit card .. back in the good old kagi days :)

Bought a second rego when 5.55 came out, followed by 2 more around the time 6.16 arrived :)

Fortunately I found friends (and a sister) to give my spare ones to, hehe :)

But yeah. Zmud's just that good, and Zugg's that dedicated, that he deserves all the support in the world :)

So Zugg, when're you going to release ZuggOS? :) I'd much rather be giving my money to you than MickeySoft ;)

-- Rainchild

SubAdmin Joined: 18 Nov 2001 Posts: 5182

Dskorren jumped up to grab the license. So it is his.

Enchanter Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 698

quote:

Dskorren jumped up to grab the license. So it is his.

If Seamer's e-mail info is current and correct, he has also received an early Christmas present.

Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:21 am

I got mr_kents email right after net connection was restored (offline for TWO days, can you believe it?) after hardware failure. Shoulda seen the look on my face, it was great to read what kent had written to me about :)
Vijilante, mr_kent, Zugg...thanks to all of you for not a-killin me :)

Why oh WHY did I have pass door on...

Novice Joined: 07 Feb 2002 Posts: 48 Location: Philippines

quote:

Dskorren jumped up to grab the license. So it is his.

thank you very much Vijilante, it was a shot in the moon. more power to you and and all the helpful people here in this forum, and specially to Zugg and all the people behind zMud. happy holidays.

Beginner Joined: 01 Nov 2001 Posts: 21 Location: USA

Wow,
I am impressed. I think that is about the nicest thing i have ever seen here on the forums. There are alot of ppl that jump at the chance to help others with issues such as triggers/alias etc, but i have never seen that kind of generosity from others. Just wanted to say Thanks to Vijilante and Mr Kent for that.

I use 5.55 and used to use 4.62 all registered legally :) and i know ppl that still use older versions and brag about using that version for 500+ days etc i think it is truely pethetic that ppl refuse to pay 25 bucks when they definately have the means to do so. Like it has been said before Zmud has the support and features nowhere and i mean no other mud client has. I have friends of mine that are Mac Freaks, who are thinking about breaking down and purchasing a PC to mud just because of Zmud. I salute Zugg for this wonderful program that i purchased years ago and use 20 hours a day, for a whopping $25 bucks as opposed to those graphical games you get sick of playing in a month but pay 50 bucks for.

Drakus of Aardwolf
www.aardmud.org
Happy 6th Birthday Aardwolf!