Posted September 10, 200717 yr Respondant wrote: > Peter Khlmann wrote: > >> Respondant wrote: >> >>> Peter Khlmann (the cowardly group-snecker) wrote: >>> >>>> Respondant wrote: >>>> >>>> < snip idiotic rant > >>>> >>>>> <Aside to the person who posted that there's no way to secure a >>>>> Windows box for any length of time without getting "lucky"> >>>>> >>>>> Win XP (SP2) home. >>>>> Firewall on. >>>>> Avast (free) AV installed and up to date. >>>>> >>>>> The machine I'm posting this from has been up, online 24/7, and >>>>> problem free for 1 year-2 months-3 days-and 18 hours, which I >>>>> believe may be a record for >>>>> both Comcast AND my electric company as well. :-) I'd say that's >>>>> a fair amount of continuous up-time without a hitch, wouldn't you? >>>> >>>> I would. If I believed a single word of it. >>> >>> Here. Argue with Belarc Advisor then. I might be a little off on >>> my time calculations, but below is a copy and paste. Or would you >>> prefer a screen-shot? >>> >> >> You mean, I should actually believe anything from a retard like you? >> Gods, are you an idiot. > > K. I understand. Anybody who can make a decent argument is a "retard". > Gotcha. Nice stance for the furthering of Linux you have going on there. > In that year that you claim to have the up time, have you never done an update of Windows, some major security updates have been out in the last year. Some updates automatically restart the PC whether you like it or not. The Avast anti-virus, I don't know that one, but if it is anything like Symantec then that can't have had updates either because Symantec nearly always asks for a restart of the machine if the update was part of the engine rather than a pattern file. And the real killer for your claim is the fact of the MS locked memory problem. It has been there for a very long time, was present in Win98, in early Win NT, and is still there in your XP, it might not be in Vista because of the change in memory model. The only reason it is not noticed so much now is because machines have much more memory and virtual memory and tend to get restarted before the memory locking problems come to light. A machine that has been on for a year, and presumably you mean that you were actually using it in that time, rather than it simply sitting there, then you must have come across the lock problem. There is no escape other than a restart. Want to know how to find this lock problem. Simple, get a C programmer to write a simple memory monitor, it's old school using the likes of malloc and calloc and monitoring what is available, you can sort of get the right results in referenced memory, you got much more accurate results with direct memory access in Win98. You will find portions of memory disapearing from the pool as a typical day goes on. In Win98 days these could be 1024 blocks, in XP they are sometimes 1024 but often reduced to 512bytes and smaller. Then do this, open Microsoft Word, don't touch any keys or open any documents, but wait around a minute. Then close it. Measure before and after, you will find that a percentage of memory has disapeared from that available. Each time you do that little experiment the same percentage will disapear. So it is true that up time on XP should be more than Win98, but it is never going to be unlimited because of that memory problem, unless the machine just sits there not doing any work, in which case there is no point in it being on anyway. Having said that, if MS had done Vista properly, then I do know enough about the new memory model to know that it would have been better than XP in that respect. That is part of the disapointment of Vista, that they implemented other peoples ideas for memory modelling and some security ideas, then made a right pigs ear putting it all together.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.