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."
16k files should be enough for everybody.
At the end, there will be free therapy. And Cake!
Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
Isn't it a little odd that if you strip off the first and last digits of the number "16,400", it's 640, as in 'no one needs more than 640k"?
Start a happiness pandemic
M$ is scared that people will try to copy their documents to another computer before reverting back to XP. Smart, very smart Micro$oft! On a tech note, what kind of number is 14,600? I would have thought 16,384 would be better.
void r() { printf("recursion is "); r(); }
they can only send 16,000 files to the RIAA and MPAA to check, at once.
If you are using Vista as a server, you pretty much deserve what ever happens to you.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
How the F%$^ 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.
Actually, the bug is in the shell, not the kernel and only files with altnerate data streams trigger the leak. The KB article that Adrian links to states that very clearly, but he's been on an anti-Windows rampage lately that's blinded him to the facts.
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.
FTA: The "Out of Memory" error (which is affectionately known at the PC Doc HQ as the "Out of Cheese" error
and then you take the 640, divide by 2, get 320, remove the last 0, and get 32, the reverse of 23.
Then you multiply 23 by 30, get 690, take 42, reverse it to 24 and subtruct this from 690. You get 666.
What does that tell you? Ha? Ha?
You can't handle the truth.
The original rant may be found here.
What does that tell you? Ha? Ha?
You've got too much time on your hands?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
only files with altnerate data streams trigger the leak
Well that's what you get for crossing the streams. Egon warned us. Kaspersky's risking total protonic reversal. I guess they were fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing.
Developers: We can use your help.
This is a minor problem, absolutely rare event, occurs with next to no regu...
**OUT OF MEMORY ERROR, SYSTEM HALT**
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Actually, a lot of the problems I've noticed with XP is related to the stupid fucking way that Windows handles it's file cache. It will literally swap out PROGRAMS YOU ARE ACTIVELY USING to expand the file cache during a large copy/read operation.
Anybody that has ever tried to alt-tab while copying huge files knows about this.... then you sit and wait for the pages to be swapped back into memory. And you might as well get some coffee, cuz with the hard drive already being pegged for the copy operation, it's gonna take awhile. Oh, and once it's finally done and you need to alt-tab back to the original program.... well, hope you need more coffee.
Lately I've been playing with a program called CachemanXP. Google it. It seems to give you more control over the memory and process management functions of Windows. It also lets you do a 'kill -9' equiv, which (as far as I'm aware) even Task Manager won't do, as it insists on trying to do a graceful shutdown first.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Actually, it's more like 90 / 90000, but you're only a few orders of magnitude off.
Not necessarily his fault, maybe he used Excel to calculate it...
It's not a simple operation. Think about how a file copy works within Vista:
1. The file is opened.
2. The file is scanned for viruses.
3. The file is scanned for adware.
4. The file is scanned for DRM violations.
5. The user is asked if they're really sure they want to copy the file.
6. The user is asked again if they're sure they want to copy it.
7. The OS makes a judgement on how long it will take to copy so it can update the pretty stats in the gui.
8. Lots of flashy graphics and widgets are loaded to show you a pretty animation while you wait.
9. The file is copied.
10. The destination file is verified that it is intact.
11. The destination file is scanned for viruses.
12. The destination file is scanned for adware.
13. The destination file is scanned for DRM violations.
14. The file is successfully copied.
Hell - I'm surprised their OS can even handle copying 1,600 files, let alone 16,000.
Just disrupt the deflector shield with a tachyon burst.
find -name "*base*" -exec chown us {} \; ; ln -s