Slashdot Mirror
Windows 8 To Reduce Memory Footprint
bheer writes "Microsoft's Windows 8 blog has a good post about the work being done to reduce Windows 8's memory footprint. The OS will use multiple approaches to do this, including combining RAM pages, re-architecting old bits of code and adding new APIs for more granular memory management. Interestingly, it will also let services start on a trigger and stop when needed instead of running all the time."
...especially the bit about the services.
> it will also let services start on a trigger and stop when needed instead of running all the time.
Nice.
Although I have to wonder, why are "services" treated differently than other programs, in this context or any other? Does it have any positive effect?
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
My first self-owned computer was a Kaypro 4-84. The OS was CPM and the machine came with 64K (yes, K) of RAM. When it booted up the screen said it had 63K of RAM. I thought I had been ripped off so I called the company. The tech explained that the other 1K was being used by the OS. So I don't think Windows 8 is going to impress me.
So windows is finally getting inetd?
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
The apps will soon eat up the difference (if they haven't already...)
That's exactly the point. OS leaves more memory for apps. duh.
Yeah, because gaming inside virtual machine works so well.
My old Asus netbook recently died, so I was forced to go out and buy another. I bought an Aspire One loaded with W7S. I really wanted to like W7. Really. I liked the interface. But damn, it was really slow and memory hungry. With no pgms running, it was taking up about 560-580M of memory, compared to Ubuntu (11.04) taking 260-270M with no pgms running.
I really couldn't have more than two programs running in W7 without hitting 900M memory use. Granted, they were big pgms - Thunderbird and Firefox, both latest versions. But contrast that with Ubuntu where I ran TB, FF, Pidgin, Hotot, Tobmoy, LibreOffice and Rhythmbox all at the same time and never go above the 850M mark in memory use (at least not yet).
This release of Ubuntu has its own set of problems (Compiz, anyone?), but I much prefer it to W7. If MS can get Window's memory usage down I'd be more inclined to use the latest version.
Because your disk space is at a massive premium, yes?
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
If you actually bothered to read the blog, you'd see that these memory optimisations were one of the very first things they did and have, in fact, been in the code for about 2 years now.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Too many people view 'free' memory as a good thing and would complain if IO cache was reduced to improve the 'free' memory. However, they can find a measure to soothe their worries. I assume it is also the case in Windows, but in Linux, for example, the categorization of memory usage as disposable cache is clearly delineated (though some cached memory can't be disposed and it's hard to tell what *that* value is, which is a problem). If free memory is under pressure, cache is safely dropped and it was as if the memory was 'free', just it nominally helped. A user bitching can be pointed to the second line of free and told to get over it.
Now to say the browser memory usage scenario is ok, that is problematic. Sure, caching content is great, but if your cache is in your RSS and other processes on the system have no way to get your disposable content to drop out for the sake of memory it needs to absolutely operate, that's a problem. If a webpage you haven't visited in 4 hours has a cached rendering taking up 64 MB and another process dies because it needed to alloc 40 MB, that's not good (values pulled out of ass for illustrative purposes). Incidentally, this is also an issue in virtualization, since a guests cached pages becomes indistinguishable from other content by the hypervisor, various weird hacks go into place for the guest to coordinate this with the host.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
You mean they coded everything in .net for the first 2 years of Vista development and then trashed it all when it didn't work as intended?
"re-architecting old bits of code"? Windows?!
I remember an interview with a former Excel developer who said that "re-architecting" was forbidden as it might break things no-one understood at the time; the original developers had left a long time before.
So. See it first. Believe it later.
But, wait, this is closed source. Whhhy should one believe them?
That's exactly the point. OS leaves more memory for apps. duh.
OS developer (and you) telling the app writers not to worry so much about memory usage? Yeah, that'll work out.
No sig today...
"Memory combining is a technique in which Windows efficiently assesses the content of system RAM during normal activity and locates duplicate content across all system memory."
ksm - dynamic page sharing driver for linux (http://lwn.net/Articles/326364/)
"KSM is a linux driver that allows dynamicly sharing identical memory
pages between one or more processes.
Unlike tradtional page sharing that is made at the allocation of the
memory, ksm do it dynamicly after the memory was created.
Memory is periodically scanned; identical pages are identified and
merged.
The sharing is unnoticeable by the process that use this memory.
(the shared pages are marked as readonly, and in case of write
do_wp_page() take care to create new copy of the page)"
Longhorn (and more specifically WinFS) was one of the very few times MSFT's ever talked about features that weren't delivered. For Windows 7, I can only think of one feature which was announced that wasn't actually delivered (bluetooth audio).
Except for Longhorn features, what Windows features were promoted but not delivered?
Trigger started services were introduced in Windows 7, this isn't new. I just wish people were taking advantage of them (I'm looking at you Google chrome and Adobe with your long running processes that do nothing but check to see if there's an update).
Ye sure, this is what always happens they promise some new and better stuff, and then they drop half the stuff and the OS is just crap. I wouldn't hold my breath for any of this. It's better to wait for the actual release. This is just hype talk.
No, but the memory optimisations are clearly a core part of the OS, so they did it first and it has been working for 2 years. Vista was a clusterfuck for all sorts of reasons, we know that, however unless they manage to find a bug in the optimisations that causes your PC to burst into flames, I doubt they'll be removing anything.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
So the AC points out how people who don't know what they're talking about "form a highly vocal opinion about it anyway!" and then proceeds to do the exact same thing about poverty in Texas, riddled with so many false assumptions it doesn't warrant a point by point response.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
With windows 7, memory has become less an issue to me. I just don't care that much; I have 4 gigs, and stuff starts right up when I click on it. As a user, that's all I care about. I could obsess about how much memory is being used at all times, I guess, but what does that metric even mean? I currently have fo:nv, mstsc, 10tabs in ie and ~20 in chrome, everything is still snappy. What does it matter that the system is showing high ram utilization?
What I'd like to see them focus on instead is the file system, and making searches work at least as well as they did in XP. Vista utterly broke file searching ( which is amazing in and of itself ), and while w7 brought back some of the functionality, it's still a crap shoot.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Hey-- 640K is all you're every going to need. You have my word on that.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
SSD and you'll care about your space again.
... quite well with 256MB of memory. Will Windows 8 be able to best that?
re-engineering?
So - disable the fucking services? Hey, I test drove Vista, I've driven Win7, and the first thing I did in each instance, was to refer to Black Viper's site. He had already figured out that disabling a list of services was all good for almost everyone, and disabling a longer list of services was good for some more people, and disabling an even longer list of services was still good for some people.
Update managers? Disable them, or change their settings to manual. Christ on a crutch, man, isn't this a geek/nerd/techie forum? Surely I don't need to explain how to get to services.msc?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
This does matter for use on non-PC systems, such as tablets and phones. One of the stated goals for Windows 8 is the desire to have the platform be the same across devices, and while desktop systems with 8+ GB of memory are increasingly common (and will likely be standard by the time 8 is widely adopted), tablets and phones still usually only have a few GB available.
it is when you want a light weight portable device like a netbook, tablet or phone. You don't see big hard disks spinning on the top selling models of those do you? Well you do with netbooks because many of them still run Windows and must have a hard disk. You do know that this memory issue is all about trying to fit Windows 8 on battery powered portable devices don't you? The 4 core ARM chips are almost here so the CPU side of the problem of running Windows will be addressed but that still ate up more battery life and many of the ARM SoCs use PoP for compact packaging but there are no 4GB PoP chips yet. Microsoft must scale Windows memory footprint down even if memory is not at a massive premium. No?
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
While amputating one of the elephants feet may technically make the beast in the room smaller, I doubt it will be enough to push it out the door.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
I'm waiting for the first phone that docks to a small docking station with USB and HDMI.
That phone has been on the market for 9 months already.
A mechanism would be interesting where a certain process (say firefox.exe) would have a physical memory cap (say 256MB)
That sort of reminds me of how Mac OS worked in the dinosaur age.
Then again, swap is starting to be a relic of the old days
Not on netbooks and tablets, where the operating system has to regularly swap out applications (on netbooks) or close background applications (on tablets) to free up memory for new tasks.
I still remember at one place I worked they had me clean up a memory leak. Unfortunately I couldn't get it past QA because they didn't understand caching. Basically the deal is that when you free memory it goes back to the memory pool for the process and then the pool decides when to release it to the OS.(Which may be never) So when I freed my memory in debug build the pool immediately returned it to the OS. When QA did that in release the pool held on to the memory and reused it. I even showed them how if you did multiple processes one after the other you could actually see the app use more and more memory while after the fix it would plateau. (Because it was just re-using the memory it had already allocate.) They totally didn't understand, I might as well have explained it to the pavement outside the building. (In the end it just got marked as unfixable. After that if I saw any memory leaks while coding I fixed them as part of other bugs and then didn't mention it to QA.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
The Black Viper list is pretty good, but the reality is that from Win7 on, the list of OS services that's enabled is the set which won't break something (if you read Black Viper's list they point out what breaks with each service disabled).
And I've not yet figured out how to convince Google Chrome to stop auto-updating (and I don't want to stop flash from auto-updating, flash and pdf are the two biggest vectors for malware out there). I just wish their auto-updaters respected the user and recognized that they should. Larry Osterman wrote an article about this a couple of years ago: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/larryosterman/archive/2007/08/20/applet-mitigations-updaters.aspx
If you're trying to run W7 with less than 4gb of memory, you're a dunce. I notice that W7 laptops with 6gb of memory are now widely available. Buy the memory, people. And btw, Microsoft needs to look at several mainframe OSes (like IBM and HP's VMS) to see how the big boys do it. But they won't, of course.
Hey-- 640K is all you're every going to need. You have my word on that.
Come back to bed, Mr. Gates, it's time for your nap.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
re-engineering?
Re-factoring.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The funny thing is that when Windows 95 came, they announced that the PC wouldn't boot into a command line. The original DOS command line would become a virtual machine like DOS box.
Then they announce that they are going to make the next generation of Windows an application that can be run separately.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
They'll care if it isn't running Windows or Office.
NOTE: For Windows 8, a clean install also contains the extended Windows Defender technology, which, for the first time incorporates complete antimalware functionality – also optimized for memory and resource use per Jason’s blog about protecting you from malware. (This functionality does not exist on a clean install of Windows 7 where we would recommend that you add security software).
This somehow made me frown.
This does matter for use on non-PC systems, such as tablets and phones. One of the stated goals for Windows 8 is the desire to have the platform be the same across devices, and while desktop systems with 8+ GB of memory are increasingly common (and will likely be standard by the time 8 is widely adopted), tablets and phones still usually only have a few GB available.
I fear you may have lived in the desktop world for too long. "Usually" for phones, RAM isn't "a few GB available", or even in total. Try 128/256/384/512 MB.
The few GB of memory they report is flash memory, i.e. storage.
...but it's not just there yet. FTFA.
Get back to me when it is there.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
As a licensed mathematician, I'm going to have to call foul on that. Leave the factoring to us. Union duties and such...
I propose "re-developing"
As a licensed mathematician, I'm going to have to call foul on that. Leave the factoring to us. Union duties and such...
I propose "re-developing"
Ha ... with that I can see you're still in your prime.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Better don't forget to streamline it so just installing the OS itself won't use up several dozen gigabytes of fucking HDD space (especially in light of SSD-based systems).
I find it difficult to believe that people are buying new machines with less than 4 gig of ram.
General objection: Just because something is cheap doesn't mean we should spend it wastefully. I'd still rather that RAM be put to better use than code bloat. I'd rather the PC be faster, or do more things, or do new things, or be cheaper still. Maybe if software wasn't bloated, PCs would be less than $100 these days. Then we could put that money towards better support.
Specific examples:
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
So buggy game code is buggy on both windows 7 and 8? Shocking...
Because your disk space is at a massive premium, yes?
My boot drive is a 40Gb Intel SSD and Windows is incapable of using any of the other disks for anything.
40Gb sounded like plenty for OS+apps. In practice it just about fits, there's nothing to spare.
No sig today...
Does it fit on the SSD? I've been thinking of putting it on my 901 because the memory management is so much better than XP but it would cost a lot to upgrade the internal SSD.
No sig today...
1. Use Firefox. 2. Yes, flash is an instant disable. Jobs was right to not support of that piece of crap. 3. Use a proper pdf viever. There are quite a few, open source and commercial too.
40Gb is possibly the smallest SSD you can get and by your own admission, it "just about fits". You can get 128Gb SSD's for about 2$ per GB and 256GB SSD's aren't far off that. By the time Windows 8 comes out, those prices should have dropped further.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
When I first installed Windows 7 it took up 13Gb, I only have a couple of gigs of apps so 40Gb should have been plenty.
How it's grown from 15Gb to over 30Gb is something that only Windows knows (and it ain't tellin'). I suspect Google has a hand with Chrome updates and whatnot, but it still doesn't add up to 30-something gigs. ON XP you could always open up the Windows folder and delete all the blue folders but they're not there any more (anybody know where they went?)
Of course I could go out and spend money to build a dream PC but that's beside the point. Windows is broken when it comes to machines with more than one disk in them.
No sig today...
Sounds a bit like Androids approach, which uses an aggressive approach to unloading components of apps out of memory, as well as closing background tasks. Basically things only really run when they are needed, and are expunged with prejudice if memory is required. It's a novel alternate approach for devices with limited memory that cannot have swap space. Right now conventional OSes will obediently use more and memory until it runs out. In fact it makes it look like swap space was always a ugly kludge in the computing world, and that giving the OS more power to manage it's memory was the way it should have always been. Android never runs "out of memory", under extreme load it will aggressively force close apps to make room as necessary, eventually killing your foreground task, should it not behave itself. Beautifully the platform forces developers to consider data loss more.
All those years we lost our work due to memory issues. Now to calculate how much of my life has been wasted by an OS thrashing a swap file and ponder how things could have been.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Firefox is also moving to a silent update model. And I'll bet they mess it up too.
Remember when Microsoft said that Windows 7 was a new version? When everyone knew it was Vista SP1? And Vista was a complete rewrite, but it turned out it had the same kernel bugs as XP SP3? And XP was a complete rewrite, but the same kernel bugs as Win2000?
No-one ever said that XP or Vista or Win7 are a "complete rewrite". Do you seriously think that Microsoft would throw away the existing product that works quite well and start from scratch just for the fun of doing so?
This is just more of MS trying to put lipstick on a pig. And the pig in question is the Windows kernel.
What specific issues do you have with Windows kernel?
You want to spend $50 less on RAM and just use "non bloated software?" You are assuming such hypothetical software would cost no more than $50 extra per machine. As a developer, when you tell me "don't bloat your code," you are telling me several things.
Actually, when I say "don't bloat your code", I'm not so much talking to you as Microsoft and other large corporate software houses, and mainly what I'm saying is: Don't build program that look like a home stereo, or change the icons in every release, or add animations and gradients and transparency or themeable UIs. Stop changing the UI around every year just because some focus group says it's 3% better -- or worse still, because someone in marketing drew a picture. Don't pump out a new version just to keep revenues up. Don't change formats without cleaning up the design. Stop adding checklist features and chasing whatever consumer trend is hot that year.
Bloat is load without worthwhile benefit, by definition. You're talking about design trade-offs, which is a something else. Although, getting in to that, I would point out that well-written code is not only usually more lightweight, but also more stable, more reliable, more secure, and easier to debug. So as long as we're looking at total costs, let's look at time spent by the user dealing with bugs and poor design and data loss and patches and security compromises, or time spent by your employees trying to maintain the ungainly mess you wrote so cheaply. Since you bring it up, I mean.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
I only read the first few blocks of text, where you appear to be arguing the most insignificant point regarding RAM optimizers. It is generally accepted that whatever benefit they provide, it is minor, and using them to improve performance is time that would have been better spent getting more RAM, if thats truly your bottleneck.
As for the rest, if you plan to argue with Mark Russinovich on Windows, kernels, or anything else of that nature, I really dont envy the whooping youre likely to receive. Im not sure who you are other than an AC who goes by APK, but Mark Russinovich is one of the leading experts on all things windows, and has made some of the absolute best troubleshooting tools for digging into Windows issues out there.
Your entire arguments seem to be centered around your insistence that you really do need memory optimizers on Windows, when noone suggests it, none of the best practices analyzers suggest it, none of the MS documentation mentions it, and the ONLY place such a thing gets a mention is in one tool that basically noone uses. For the entirety of my time working on computers (and of my time in school), I have heard time and again the experts saying "dont use them, they do nothing", which is basically true (there are corner cases where in a pinch it might help for a very brief time of high memory pressure to use such an optimizer, but they are very rare, and usually the problem is more fundamentally a shortage of RAM).
Its so scatterbrained and ridiculous Im not sure why I even bothered to respond, honestly, but here you go.
2011: Microsoft discovers lazy loading.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Longhorn was a spectacular case of crying wolf that is hard to forget. For a few years every major OS X or linux feature announced provoked a MS press event along the lines of "Longhorn already does it, they are copycats" - then the reality emerged as Vista.
Do we really have to dig furthur? OK then, take a look at the announcements for successive versions of MS Exchange, and part from inspiring wonder as to why such new features were not in v1.0 you'll see a few recycled pending features that were held over for a version or two after the announcement (and I don't mean subjective ones like reliability or otherwise).
We're not talking about Exchange here, we're talking about *Windows*. Steven Sinofsky, the head of Windows is notorious about not saying anything about features before they're fully baked.
Ok then, so you are thinking about a specific product and a short timespan but put out the general statement "was one of the very few times MSFT's ever talked about features that weren't delivered". We can't see inside your head and can only read what is written so I have to admit from the outside it looks a lot like shifting the goalposts no matter what the actual intention was.
Either way, the dishonesty shown with Longhorn (can already do X instead of X is planned) and many projects earlier (and I'm sure some later) has left its mark and will take a long time to live down.
No-one ever said that XP or Vista or Win7 are a "complete rewrite".
Actually, to generate interest and fight the perception that the Windows is bloated old mess of code, MS does periodically state that the new version is a rewrite. For example the "MinWin" rubbish they started before Windows 7 came out. Is Windows 7 really a slimmed down version of Vista? No, it's a rubbish assertion by MS. Was Vista really a new kernel? No, that was rubbish again.
But just because it's rubbish doesn't mean that the MS Marketing Machine doesn't churn this stuff out in the lead up to a new release. And they say Apple's marketing is bad.
Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
yeah, use firefox and experience the magic! 3 tabs open and 10%cpu, ~350MB ram.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
MinWin is a real thing. It was never claimed to be a grounds-up rewrite, however. It is clear that you are simply misinterpreting things (which wouldn't be surprising if you get these kinds of news from Slashdot, where stories are written by people who are similarly well-informed on the subject).
Nobody today is desoldering and testing and reselling DRAM chips because you wouldn't get paid enough. Modules go to landfills and we make more. By the same token, nobody is conserving memory because it just costs you speed. Sure, we all remember the days when 1MB was a lot. Now, it isn't. Buy some more RAM.
Bloat is load without worthwhile benefit, by definition.
Worthwhile to who?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Since you're not saying anything Runaway1956 didn't say in his original post, I'll just refer you to my original rejection of that assertion.
One should establish POV during the discussion, true. In this case, I'm arguing for software quality, user productivity, and cost savings. I suppose from the POV of the marketing department, flashy but functionless graphics might considered be worthwhile. However, I think that if you studied user experience, they would find software that works well more worthwhile that something with a pretty package, in the long run. Software is a tool, and a tool should be measured by how well it does its job.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Mulliganing?
I come here for the love
The funny thing is that when Windows 95 came, they announced that the PC wouldn't boot into a command line. The original DOS command line would become a virtual machine like DOS box.
Are you implying that isn't what happened? Windows 95 only used DOS as a bootloader-- as soon as Windows was loaded, it ran DOS in a virtual machine from then on. Here's the process as described by Raymond Chen: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2007/12/24/6849530.aspx
Now you might argue that using DOS as a bootloader means your computer "boots into DOS" first before Windows, but that's just being pedantic.
Comment of the year
What I meant that that before Windows 95, you could power up your PC, got into MSDOS, and if you wanted, just type 'win' to get Windows, as you could with any other application of the time; autocad, wordstar, tempra.
Windows 95 took away that option. You couldn't just "opt out" of Windows and stay in the boot loader or customized MSDOS.
Now Microsoft want to make Windows an application again, so it can be run on any device as an option.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Now Microsoft want to make Windows an application again, so it can be run on any device as an option.
Unless you're reading a different article than the one I just read, one of us is confused...
Comment of the year
Hacks and tweaks, as in little special cases everywhere "to make interactive tasks look faster", "to make services run faster", "to find identical DLLs loaded from different files", etc. -- all fixes for overall deficient design, none of them of any use for the user.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Well it's not as though I was happy about this.(Really in a perfect world they would be in the bug tracking system.) However the point was that QA had in effect put in the requirement that when you fixed a memory leak the memory had to be released back to the OS so they could check it with task manager. However go check a generic reference for the delete method in C++. It doesn't say the memory gets released to the OS. A specific implementation may do that but many simply don't. (This is stuff I found out when I researched it and really get a general understanding on this.) So basically QA decided on a requirement that could never be satisified for a memory leak. (Since the memory manager wasn't required to release the memory to the OS having that as a requirement on a memory leak bug made them impossible to fix. You could never satisfy the requirement.) As I've said I could show them in a debug build that the leak was fixed. (Since debug did release the memory to the OS. It did this to help us software engineers get our code working properly and in debug you're not supposed to be concerned about speed.) Once you went to release build however the memory manager wouldn't release the memory back to the OS, it'd cache it. (Since apparently that's faster.) As I wrote in my other post I tried to go to the extra mile and pointed out a way that they could test it but they ignored what I said completely. (Basically take the app and run a pair of tests, one right after the other without shutting down the app. With the fix the memory plateaued because of the caching.) They insisted that they had to do it with Task manager and that the memory had to be released back to the OS. (Which was wrong from a technical point of view. Explaining this more than once made no difference. Yes, I really did this more than once.) I should point out the main thing I wanted out of them was to run their automated test suite to make sure I didn't break anything else. (Since I already knew the memory leak they were talking about was fixed so I didn't need them to check that. I needed to know if I broke anything by fixing the memory leak.) So I was going to get this anyway.(Because they always ran those tests on all bugs.) Should I mentioned I talked to a senior engineer about this issue. I basically read between the lines afterward that he had gone through the exact same thing. (Since he mentioned QA should really only do the automated tests on a memory leak since to be more precise you can't even definitively diagnose a memory leak if you can't see the code.) Actually he was one that told me to just find memory leaks as you find them. But the long and short of it is as I've said they didn't get caching. Because they didn't get caching they though something was true about the freeing of memory that actually wasn't true. Because they thought this they came up with requirements that were impossible to satisfy for a memory leak and they wouldn't listen when you tried to explain what they didn't understand and why their requirements were impossible. There really wasn't many other options than just cut them out of the loop when you fixed a memory leak.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Actually he was one that told me to just find memory leaks as you find them.
Slight correction, "Fix memory leaks as you find them." is what I meant to say.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
640kb ought to be enough for anybody.
had to show him how/where/when/why a program of his (pagedefrag.exe) had definite "rookie level" hardcodes in it ....
He & I used to do work for the same companies in the 1990's, & yes, he's done some good work, no questions asked...
Im posting here because you seemed so hurt when you responded to me elsewhere.
So heres my response-- if youre so leet, and Marks a rookie, how come hes a Microsoft Fellow and youre an AC on slashdot? And being honest here, why should I, not knowing anything about you, take your claims over that of Mark Russinovich (and scores of others I could link to)?