Slashdot Mirror
Vista Runs Out of Memory While Copying Files
ta bu shi da yu writes "It appears that, incredibly, Vista can run out of memory while copying files. ZDNet is reporting that not only does it run out of memory after copying 16,400+ files, but that 'often there is little indication that file copy operations haven't completed correctly.' Apparently a fix was scheduled for SP1 but didn't make it; there is a hotfix that you must request."
And that is one of many reasons we are all still running XP
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
If you are using Vista as a server, you pretty much deserve what ever happens to you.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
.. when your GUI is using 2 gigs of RAM.
It probably is 16384.
"16400" is clueless technical writerspeak for "The developer said '16,384', and the style guide says to use three significant digits".
(Alternate explanation: "The developer said '0x4000', and the style guide says 'convert to decimal' as well as 'if it's not a round number, use three significant digits'")
There are enclued technical writers, but 16400 is so close to 16384 that it makes me suspect that the author of the MSKB article isn't one of them.
How the F%$^ can this be a problem? A file copy is a simple operation. There's simply no excuse for this... This should have never been a problem in the first place. What pisses me off is that I need to buy a new laptop, Vista is now forced down my throat, and I have no option to get XP pre-installed.
If it is *just* kapersky that causes the problem, then why is MS issuing a hotfix instead of kapersky?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Very probably it's 16,384, as in 2^14. I'm sure it was a hardcoded limit. So typical, Microsoft... so typical.
Beautiful - got some bites too. Warms the cockles of this Mac lover's heart.
I don't think there has ever been a version of Windows that could deal with large numbers of files. Particularly if you are using the GUI interface. The whole thing is a toy operating system, really.
A few years ago, while investigating a similar problem with a production server (a SERVER not a client machine) the machine would gradually grind to a halt doing the copy, while still responding (but slowly) to other operations.
I found that the "copy" command did much better than a drag and drop operation, but still would have a problem eventually. Finally, I found that this was a known problem, and that to solve it, a dedicated MS employee had written a utility called "robocopy" the "robo" not being for "robot", but for "robust" (really, it said that!).
Using that usually got the job done, much more slowly than it should have, but at least I didn't have to re-boot the machine daily to clear things up.
Now that Gates is too busy with other things to take tours of the data center, really, Microsoft should do itself a favor and ditch the VMS underpinnings of Windows (some of which they have probably forgotten how to maintain) and build your nice GUI on top of BSD or something similar. That way you won't break your budget (in manpower and electricity) trying to match the Google server farms.
Once that's done you will have the experience needed to do the same on the desktop. You will be doing the world, and yourselves a favor. Thanks in advance!
Where are you shopping? Most computer manufacturers still offer Windows XP instead of Vista as an option on their computers.
You know you can opt for a Macintosh. With Leopard coming out and all. Plus, if you *need* Windows, it is just a reboot away or something.
Very few files have data streams, so the vast majority of users won't ever see a problem. Kaspersky choses to pollute every single file with a stream, however, which is why systems with it installed exhibit the problem.
So it's Kaspersky's fault that alternate data streams are apparently no longer supported by Vista, despite being a basic part of NTFS?
The original rant may be found here.
...why would anyone want to copy 16400+ files? What if a person were to upgrade their hard drive.Linux Zealots: Smarter than Mac Zealots, but still zealots.
Funny, I thought he just bought the OS from someone else - didn't lay it out at all.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
No, what's really humorous is that the VIRTUALLY EXACT SAME POST (substitute Linux for OSX & OS9, change a couple of the system specs - otherwise identical) was modded flamebait while this was modded informative.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=329765&cid=20999373
Neat, huh? I love consistent moderation! Or perhaps we should ask what that says of /. mods of late? Is Linux (or Ubuntu Linux in particular) on the way out of /. mod's favs - and being replaced with OSX/OS9?
All in all, I think it funny! As is this post! Really! I swear!
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
To quote one of the posters from the article:
"The leak is not in the kernel, it's in Explorer. Adrian apparantly has a problem reading between his FUD glasses: the KB article that he links to states that very clearly."
Still, it is an amazingly stupid bug, but it's not in the kernel, it's just an explorer bug.
their bug is legitimate. Unix does shell globbing (yes, it IS fucking retarded), which means that wildcard expansion is done by the shell, and there's a definite file line limit. This can easily be solved using an xargs (or find or something) command, and most shell geeks know how to/that they have to do this, and I don't think any of the GUIs have a problem similar to this.
It's forced down your throat because you couldn't be bothered to source a laptop from anywhere but CC?
Give me a break.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
"Very few files have data streams, so the vast majority of users won't ever see a problem. Kaspersky choses to pollute every single file with a stream, however, which is why systems with it installed exhibit the problem."
Yeah, that's the typical Windows world attitude.
The operating system is specified to do certain things. It doesn't do them. Well, if not many people use this feature, so what? One of the way we make the feature list long is by including lots of features that don't work, but we figure nobody will use them and nobody will find out...
"Waiter, there's a fly in my soup."
"What kind of soup?"
"The orange scented celery puree.
"Oh, hardly anyone orders that. You should expect flies in it. It's your own fault for being foolish enough to order it."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
So the problem is not in the kernel? It's because the OLE chrome doesn't work right with the extended attributes chrome?
And even so, Microsoft can't fix it in SP1?
This news is both strange and disturbing.
How can you expect consistent moderation? Because of the way the system works, the first mod can effectively hide a post from other modders (yes they advice you to mod at -1 but who does that?) so wether a post gets seen or not depends on who gets to see it first. Mod it down, and it is gone. Mod it up, and more people see it, this includes downward modders but also upward modders, so it totally depends on the first mod.
Then there is the fact that moderation is totally random. So random that sometimes I get them constantly while othertimes I go for weeks without. Meta moderation is even worse.
Then there is mods themselves, not the moderators, but the way you can mod. There is no simple "FALSE" mod. or "you are an idiot" mod. Or a "True" mod. Flamebait and troll are way to often used to mean "I don't agree with you." Insightfull and intresting far too often for someone just stating the facts.
So don't expect sense from the moderation system, just accept that some of the best posts will disappear forever because a mod didn't like it, and that some crap will be modded up.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Pop quiz: How do you calculate the remaining time?
Don't. It's going to be wrong, anyway.
How do you handle infinitely recursing soft links?
Does Windows even support soft links?
That does not make a bit of sense, either one of you!
Added Pressly: "Oh, and by the way, milk is nothing but liquid meat."
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=329765&cid=20999373
Neat, huh? I love consistent moderation! Or perhaps we should ask what that says of
The original post (in this thread) was clearly meant as a satire based upon the post that you also dug up. The post is now showing as funny instead of informative, but often you'll find informative or interesting mods on funny posts as an additional satire, which in itself is often quite funny (e.g. seeing a clearly nonsense but otherwise funny post modded as informative is often funny). Regardless, this post is funny, not because of the content alone, but because it is poking fun at a fairly infamous post in
Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
It's a shame that Open Source chooses names that turn most people off.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
And arguably, they never have.
Zing!
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere