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.
|
Linear Mode
