DrPizza

Quote: Originally posted by AlecStaar Yup, sounds JUST LIKE HPFS for Os/2, ext2 for Linux & previous versions of NTFS as well... Extended atributes data stored for files, like last access time & date stamps for example, as well as NTFSCompression & NTFSEncryption attributes as well as STREAMS data! Actually, the only FS of those that I know works in this way is "previous versions of NTFS". I believe those other FSes have structures "outside" the filesystem (rather than the NTFS way of files *within* the filesystem, despite the NTFS driver hiding their existance) -- I know that HPFS certainly does (it has bitmaps interspersed throughout the disk to describe the 8 Mbyte bands in which data can be stored). Quote: PLUS HardLinks (2 files have the same name (another scary one, potentially!) HardLinks are when the same file has two names (some directory entries point to the same MFT record). Say a same file has the names A.txt and B.txt: The user deletes file A, file B still is online. Say the user goes and deletes file B, file A remains STILL. Means both names are completely equal in all aspects at the time of creation onwards. Means the file is physically deleted ONLY when the last name pointing to it gets deleted.)! Reference counted filenames are a POSIX requirement, and are quite useful. Though their behaviour can be initially disconcerting. Quote: Yup, as I heard & mention above, $MFT can store files in its contents... That's because all features of a file on NTFS are stored as attributes of that file, be they data or metadata. Any attribute can reside within the MFT entry, and any attribute (I *think* including the name) can be made non-resident (i.e. stored as an extent on the non-MFT portion of the disk) if it grows beyond a certain size. The data streams of a file are no exception to this. Quote: I think a very dangerous 'bug' exists, because of this & zero-byte files creation: potential for disaster, you may wish to run this by your programmers: A quote from another developer: "Each file on NTFS has a rather abstract constitution - it has no data, it has streams. One of the streams has the habitual for us sense - file data. But the majority of file attributes are also streams! Thus we have that the base file nature is only the number in MFT and the rest is optional. The given abstraction can be used for the creation of rather convenient things - for example it is possible to "stick" one more stream to a file, having recorded any data in it - for example information about the author and the file content as it was made in Windows 2000 (the most right bookmark in file properties which is accessible from the explorer). It is interesting that these additional streams are not visible by standard means: the observed file size is only the size of the main stream contains the traditional data. It is possible for example to have a file with a zero length and at its deleting 1 GByte of space is freed just because some program or technology has sticked anadditional stream (alternative data) of gigabyte size on it. But actually at the moment the streams are practically not used, so we might not be afraid of such situations though they are hypothetically possible. Just keep in mind that the file on NTFS is much deeper and more global concept than it is possible to imagine just observing the disk directories. Well and at last: the file name can consist of any characters including the full set of national alphabets as the data is represented in Unicode - 16-bit representation which gives 65535 different characters. The maximum file name length is 255 characters." I think that the file name length is an API limitation, not a filesystem limitation, though I could be wrong. AFAIK, file names aren't "special" attributes, though they're the ones that the system defaults to sorting by (it would be in principal be possible to have a directory whose contents were listed according to, say, size, or some user-defined attribute, by altering the directory information so that it listed the other attribute as the one to sort by). Quote: type nul > Drive:\Folder\Filename.Extension can create zero byte files, take up no room,right? WRONG! $MFT knows they're there & creates metadata surrounding them & forces itself to grow, small growth for each one, but growth! Do that long enough?? TROUBLE! E.G.-> A program creates zero byte files with diff. names on them (1.txt, 2.txt... n.txt) in an endless LOOP? Watch what happens to the $MFT: grows until there is NO MORE ROOM left for anything else! Reservation zone might stop that & disk quotas, but I am not sure! PERSONALLY, I think it'd keep growing & growing until the disk is full... I do not believe the OS enforces Quotas on the $MFT nor does the NTFS drivers! Disk quotas can be enforced on USERS in Explorer.exe security tab... I don't know if they can be imposed on SYSTEM user or NTFS driver itself! Yep, there is the potential for causing a problem here. The few hundred bytes occupied by MFT entries aren't counted towards my disk quota (and I'm not sure named streams or custom file attributes are, either), and it'd be possible to use all disk space in this way. Similarly, it'd be possible to use all the disk space with zero length files on an inode-based filesystem, by simply using all the inodes. This class of problem isn't restricted to NTFS. Quote: To change the amount of space NTFS reserves for the MFT: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\FileSystem Add NtfsMftZoneReservation as a REG_DWORD value & of a range from 1 - 4. 1 is min percentage, 4 is max % used. It's exceedingly rare to be worth bothering with this. Quote: * Scary eh? Top that off w/ each of those files possessing a hidden filestream... & you compound the danger! Food for thought for your companies next upgrade... Watch for alternate datastreams in zero byte files & alternatedatastreams period! There are a number of tools for listing streams in a file (the "normal" Win32 file APIs can't, but the Win32 backup APIs can), so it's not an unsolvable problem. Quote: Yes, it is a bitmapped filesystem that MS uses in any of them they use! Ext2 on Linux is same... bitmapped filesystem, most defraggers & people call it "Volume Bitmap". It isn't a "bitmapped filesystem". It uses a bitmap of the disk to speed the process of locating free space on the disk, but if anything, it's an extent-based filesystem. The use of some kind of bitmap is almost mandatory (as it's too expensive (though perfectly possible) to build the information from file entries each time a free cluster needs to be found. Quote: I am not aware those currently! I have read about "reparse points" but not about $Usnjnl... is it the 'hidden' folder named "System Volume Information"? I can see it in Explorer.exe but cannot access its contents (must change Explorer's properties to see it)! No, they aren't. I don't remember where they are (I think in a directory $Extend, but I don't remember). System Volume Information contains the files made by the Content Indexing service. Quote: Works fine on SP2 2k, & previous ones... & that IS how they skate around patches! They do it independent of the MS defrag API calls. This is why I wouldn't ever trust the product. Quote: Good read on that @ sysinternals.com also! The API's MS uses?? Came from Executive Software code! In NT 3.5x you had to patch the kernel to use Diskeeper... MS licensed that code & integrated it into their kernel, & the native defrag in 2k/XP is a VERY BASIC watered-down Diskeeper. That makes little sense, as the mechanisms that the native defragging uses are not part of the kernel. Quote: Note, they both run from .msc console shortcuts extensions to Computer Management as well? First time a Symantec Product was NOT the native defrag in a Win32 based OS! The defragger in Windows 98/98SE/ME is as much an Intel product as it is a Symantec one. Quote: It's good stuff, has merits others don't... mainly? System Uptime should appeal to Network Admins! Uptime is for pissing contests. Availability is all that matters, and if you demand high availability, you have a cluster, and so can afford to take a machine down for maintenance. Quote: No taking down a server for maintenance when Speedisk works... uptime is assured, defrags can take place & users still access their data! A non-issue, IMO. I'd sooner have a product that is guaranteed not to be broken by minor FS updates or kernel changes (i.e. on that uses the built-in FSCTLs) than one that doesnt' require me to reboot occasionally.

Quote: Originally posted by AlecStaar (jwallen brought that up and another defragger PerfectDisk AND O&O defrag...) So, I mentioned Executive Software's Diskeeper! AND Diskeeper DOES DO MFT$ work at boottime, here is a quote from their products features page on it: "Frag Guard ® (Windows NT and 2000 only). Online prevention of fragmentation in your most critical NT/2000 system files: the Master File Table (MFT) and Paging Files. Fragmentation of the MFT can seriously impact performance as the operating system has to go through the MFT to retrieve any file on the disk. If the MFT is already fragmented when Diskeeper is installed, Diskeeper can defragment it with a boot-time defragmentation feature, then maintain this consolidated state. Frag Guard works much the same way with the Paging File. This is a specialized NT file on the disk which acts as an extension of the computer’s memory. When memory fills up, the system can utilize this file as virtual memory. A fragmented Paging file impacts performance when it reads data back into system memory. The greater the fragmentation, the slower vital computer operations will perform." http://www.execsoft.com/diskeeper/about/diskeeper.asp Now here's the problem. Executive Software's most famous product is Diskeeper. Diskeeper is a disk defragger. As such, it's in Executive Software's interest to make a really big deal about the performance degradation caused by fragmented files. The thing is... it's not that big a deal. To determine the number of file reads that are being hindered by fragmentation, go into PerfMon, and add the counter PhysicalDisk\Split I/O/sec, for the disk or disks that you're interested in. This counter measures the number of reads/writes made to the disk that have to be split into multiple operations (there are two reasons to do this; large I/O operations, and I/O operations that are split by fragmented files). If that counter stays on zero (or close to it) then your level of fragmentation is irrelevent -- because it's not fragmenting I/Os. (OK, I'm glossing over some details; for instance, whenever a piece of information is read from a file the list of clusters that make up that file has to be read. With FAT 12/16/32, it doesn't matter if the clusters are contiguous or not, it still has to read the whole cluster chain. With NTFS it is *very* slightly quicker to read this information when the file is in a contiguous block. The reason for this is that NTFS is extent-based (the file entries say, "This file starts at this cluster and continues for the next X clusters", rather than "this cluster, then this cluster, then this cluster, then this cluster ... then this cluster, that was the last cluster"). And it is *very* slightly faster to read one extent than it is several. Given that the extents themselves are listed contiguously, the overhead is likely unmeasurable except for the most extreme cases (like, a 1 Gbyte file made of 250,000 single cluster extents)) The other thing to look at is the counter PhysicalDisk\Avg. Disk Bytes/transfer. This gives a rough indication of how small a fragment has to be in order to cause a problem. At the moment, mine is at about 10 kbytes/transfer. Let's round it up to about 16 kbytes. Now, let's imagine that my pagefile is split up into fragments each of 1 Mbyte each. The way Windows' VM works on x86 is to use 4 kbyte pages; each read into (or out of) the pagefile will be done in 4 kbyte chunks (I say "on x86" because the page size is platform-dependent; for instance, IA64 uses 8 kbyte pages). My 1 Mbyte fragment of pagefile thus contains 250 individual pages within it. Let's say a running program makes a request that causes a hard pagefault (i.e. it has to read some information back in from the pagefile), and it requires 16 kbytes information (the average transfer size) and they're located within my 1 Mbyte fragment. Assuming each location in the fragment is equally likely, then as long as the read starts at one of the first 246 page boundaries, then it won't require a split I/O. If it begins on one of the last 3 boundaries, it'll require a split I/O (because the end of the request will be in a different fragment). That's only a 1.2% probability that fragmentation of my pagefile will require a split I/O. And a 1 Mbyte pagefile fragment is pretty small. That's only a rough calculation, but it's fairly representative of the truth. Split I/Os are rare, single transfers of more than about 64 kbytes are rare. If your fragments are all much larger than this (say, nothing smaller than a megabyte or two) then fragmentation is highly unlikely to be the cause of any measurable performance degradation. Executive Software won't tell you such a thing, of course -- there'd be no money in pointing this out. But that doesn't make it untrue. Quote: P.S.=> Norton Speedisk by Symantec? It does pagefile defrags DURING Win32 GUI Operations, only one I know that does! BUT, it has a nasty habit of snapping the MFT$ into 2 parts... always! This is why I keep Diskeeper around additionally, to take care of that! apk The chance of a two-piece MFT mattering a damn is tiny, and would require extremely bad luck. I wouldn't touch Speed Disk with a bargepole. It has the (unique) ability to be broken even by the tiniest change to the underlying disk format or internal mechanisms. Simply put, I have no trust in it, and no faith in what it does. The Windows documentation explicitly warns against making certain assumptions, but Speed Disk makes them anyway.

Quote: Diskeeper 7 can now defraf 4K+ clusters. (Took 'em long enough) It wasn't their fault. The defrag FSCTLs provided by the NTFS driver didn't work for clusters greater than 4 kbytes.

Quote: Security. The pagefile may contain the data that you were working on. Clearing it a shutdown makes it harder to find the data. I would not enable it. The pagefile will be remade on bootup re-fragmenting your files. I don't believe this is true; it clears the pagefile, not deletes it (as I understand it; this was the NT 3.51 behaviour, and I don't see any reason for it to be different).

Quote: Messing around in the registry, I noticed the option to "ClearPageFileAtShutdown". It is set by default to "0" (no). What is the purpose of enabling this feature? Are there any performance advantages/disadvantages in doing do? The purpose is to permit NT to gain C2 security evaluation. It has no notable impact, other than slowing shutdown times, and, of course clearing the pagefile. It would be theoretically possible for sensitive information to be left in the pagefile, and hence recoverable. C2 has strict rules on the re-use of resources, and so to prevent this kind of behaviour it has this option available to you.

Quote: Originally posted by reversing_drive I find that i most cases in Win2000 when using the operating system, installing, unistalling apps, up[censored] , new drivers, tweaking ect... you would be either most of the time (If not all the Time) logged on as administrator, OR have a separate user profile with administrative privelages. But say you have a second profile, which has the same rights as the guest account (though not enabling guest account because it has the fixed 'guest' PW). Using this profile, are many viruses (Damaging types, modifying system files ect...) stopped in their tracks because they are restricted to behaving within the user rights of the guest account, ie. would they be helpless in trying to modify any system files because of auditing & user rights? Yes. Absolutely correct. This won't stop all viral actions -- for instance, they'll still be able to e-mail themselves to other people -- but gone will be the ability to modify system files, much of the registry, and so on. Viruses aren't "special". They have to live by the constraints that the OS imposes on them. If you're an Administrator, there are very few such constraints (and many of those there are can be turned off). The viruses will be able to infect files you have write access to (if your ACLs are set strictly, that will mostly be limited to those files within your profile directory), and alter registry keys you have access to (if your ACLs are set strictly, that will mostly be limited to HKCU), and will still be able to, for instance, e-mail itself to people. But it won't be able to damage system files, or do many of the more nasty things that viruses do. Quote: While on the same note, would hackers have a harder time modifiying a users computer remotley because of the restrictions the current user has? Depends. If, for instance, they get the user to run a trojan, that trojan will only be able to do things that the user account can do. So if it's unprivileged (and the system has been secured through ACLs), then it won't be able to, say, damage system files.

Right Click My Computer, Properties, Advanced, Performance Options, Change, and there it is.

Quote: That's an UNNEEDED LOAD! If a process of ANYKIND exists?? Nope. Windows NT doesn't give cycles to processes that are suspended. Not "it doesn't give them very many cycles" but "it doesn't give them any cycles at all". Windows NT will also -- if necessary -- completely flush an application to disk. Not "mostly to disk" or "only a bit to disk" but "completely". Quote: It's a load on the system, what the heck do you think it is? If the application is receiving no processor cycles, and if the application is consuming no RAM, where is the load? Quote: (And, more importantly, Why run it if I do not need it?) Because you do not know if you need it or not. The dependency information in the registry merely dictates those services that a service needs to start. They do not take into account, for instance, that a domain controller needs to have DNS running before NetLogon. They do not take into account, for instance, that Routing and Remote Access needs Remote Registry in order to configure it properly. Quote: You are NOT making sense! That's like saying I should start ALL of Microsoft Office's apps to run Word! No, it isn't. The dependencies are clear-cut in this case, and if you don't need Excel -- ever -- there's no point in starting it up. The same isn't true of services that are used only infrequently. Quote: PeterB/DrPizza: Tweaks accumulate, do that for alot of services it adds up! Let's use my raincoat idea: I am lighter & run cooler in nice weather without it... If I need it? I put it on... Analogies are for the weak-minded. Please, stick to the subject at hand. Quote: LOL, really now? <snip> I am not using! Because who knows when you'll need to print or fax? I don't print often, but I do occasionally... the Print Spooler service doesn't start itself up if it's set to manual (it probably /should/, but doesn't). Any "slowdown" that running the service unnecessarily might have is more than offset by the slowdown of my having to manually start the service each time I need it. Quote: Why use Disk I/O & CPU cycles flushing to disk AT ALL, especially for a process you don't run at all? Because as you say, you do use it. Quote: Turn off services you don't need! (1) There are plenty that I need only occasionally. (2) There are plenty whose dependencies are not listed in the registry, and so which are unpredictable. Quote: This is even recommended for Back Office <snip> would you like the issue # & date? I couldn't care less. Whilst obviously it makes sense for (say) IIS, or SQL Server, or Echange -- because they're not core components -- the same is not true for many of the other services, which provide low-level functionality to the rest of the system. Quote: I can turn the service on if needed & when needed by setting it to manual after checking its dependencies! (1) The dependency information is sufficient to determine which services (and applications) rely on which other services. (2) Having to manually turn on the service requires more of my time than I would ever lose from any potential "slow down" caused by having it run the whole time. Quote: For my use patterns this makes alot of sense, printing & faxing being my example! I rarely print & fax, I turn off those services until needed! And so you waste more time than you might ever hope to gain. Assuming your system is pressured for RAM, and assuming the print spooler wasn't paged to disk during an idle moment anyway, the overhead of paging it out is perhaps half a second (a one-off overhead; it won't get paged back in until needed). If you can turn on any arbitrary service in less than half a second, then you've made a gain -- assuming that the service didn't get paged out when the machine was idle anyway. If it was idle when it paged the service out, you'd have to start the service in less than half a second. Quote: Hey, everyone, turn on your entire MS-Office suite because you need to run it all the time to use Word... That would make no sense. Apart from anything else, MS Office isn't linked with the /WS:AGGRESSIVE linker option, which means that it won't so aggressively be paged out of memory. The same isn't true for many services. MS Office has a clear-cut set of dependencies and relationships between the components. The same isn't true of services. That said, if your system really needs more free RAM, it will page anything out (except for some bits of the kernel/executive), including MS Office... once paged, the overhead will be nil, but unlike a service, which will often get paged out when the system is idle, MS Office will tend to only be paged out when the system is busy. Quote: If my system is working on a big datafile or database, or image, you are telling me it's faster for it to have to page services I don't need running in the first place out of RAM first? They'll almost certainly already be paged out.... And if you want to, say: (1) Work on a big database (2) Print something (3) Work on a big database some more Then it'll be faster to just leave the Print Spooler running all the time. Quote: So my foreground database or imaging program can continue processing its data? Because some service application I don't even use is in the way?? It isn't "in the way". It's not doing anything, at all. Quote: I don't think so! I maximize free RAM right off, by not running services I do not use all the time! So my apps get that RAM, like larger games! But Windows will give those applications the RAM -- if they ask for it -- anyway. Quote: When I do? I turn them on! Which wastes more time than you might ever hope to save. Quote: Again, hey everyone: Turn on ALL Your games now, so you can load Quake III Arena faster, keep them on at system start whether you are playing them or not! Quake III doesn't aggressively trim its working set. Quake III isn't a good citizen. Services are. Quote: None, except at system start having more CPU cycles free not running programs (services) I don't use all the time or not at all! If you're in the habit of starting your system, perhaps you'll have problems. I don't know why you would be in the habit of doing anything of the sort. Quote: None, except more RAM free by not loading programs/services I don't use, like services I am not using! Services ARE programs dude! But they don't use any memory if the OS has something more important wanting it, "dude". Quote: None, except for the I/O's not used by not running services I don't need! Except that the time spent paging them out is less than the time you'll spend manually starting the (and certainly less than the time you'll spend troubleshooting when an unlisted dependency isn't fulfilled). Quote: Everyone turn on ALL of your internet apps right now, every one!Because like PeterB says, you might need to run Netscape! lol...heck with free RAM & CPU cycles, you will page like mad! But he says your system will run faster! What a crock! No, because those applications are not linked in the same way. The system will tend to hang on to them for a bit longer. Quote: Do I say turn them all off? No... only ones you don't use all the time! I keep SOME of them on, ones I use ALL the time! And I keep all the ones I use on. They don't consume any processor resources (until I actually use them). They don't consume any RAM (until I actually use them). They load quicker than having to manually start them. Where's the gain in turning them off? Quote: Here's my point to a tee: I DON'T RUN THOSE SERVICES! I don't allow remote registry control to run here either! It's a security risk and I run fine without it! It isn't a security risk, unless your system is misconfigured. But you miss the point -- where does the dependency information state that in order to configure (but not run) RRAS, Remote Registry must be running? It doesn't. You need it running to configure RRAS, but nowhere does it bother to tell you this. Quote: Yes... I know PeterB, that's one I use (else I would not be here) & I leave that one running! lol... very good! Actually, I doubt you do; NetLogon is only required if you're running in an NT/Active Directory Domain. The point, which again you've missed, is that although it can, and often does, depend on the DNS Server service, it isn't listed in its dependencies. Quote: Really? I seem to be running fine here! So do most of the folks practicing this! And I'm running fine here... without ever having to waste time manually starting services. Quote: According to you, in order for me to run parts of Microsoft Office? I should have all the apps in it open right now at once & at system start... to run Word! lol, Same idea. Er, no, completely different idea. Word doesn't provide services to the rest of the OS. Quote: That must be a miracle process... I have never seen a program that uses absolutely 0% of the CPU during its lifecycle, & absolutely 0% of the RAM too! Amazing! Uhhhh. No, not really. Write a program that: (1) Gets a handle to the current thread. (2) Calls SuspendThread on that handle. (3) Link the program with the /WS:AGGRESSIVE option. Your application will no longer be running, and, if the system is short on memory, will be paged out in its entirety. Quote: Write me that program, please... <snip> it does NOT exist! Ooops: #include <windows.h> int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { SuspendThread(GetCurrentThread()); return 0; } Quote: P.S.=> Folks about the LOL stuff? <snip> ah, it's sure nice to have fans, lol, but not psycho stalker ones! apk I'm not the one who sends abusive e-mail with forged headers to people. The only psycho round here is yourself.

Quote: Originally posted by AlecStaar Really? If I am not printing (rare here unless coding), & faxing alot... I should leave the print spooler & fax service on? (You're saying that turning them off is not worth doing?) Yes. Quote: Setting them (my example of PrintSpooler & Fax Services) to manual lets me turn them on & off as needed! AND, stops flushing to Disk I/O & CPU Usage in the doing of it, plus taking up pagefile space with data I won't use anyhow! AND, stops the use of my RAM & CPU time in running them in the FIRST PLACE if I don't need them! If they're not actually running (i.e. nothing is printing or faxing) then they don't consume any processor resources. Preventing them from "taking up pagefile space" makes your computer run no faster. Quote: Let's assume you're right about it flushing them to disk... 1.) CPU cycles are not being used to do flush them to disk, to run them in the first place? They get used to flush them to disk. Once. But that's a negligible load. Quote: (Flushing to disk virtual memory would not have to be done AT ALL if you don't run them from system boot or automatic in the first place!) But it doesn't introduce a measurable overhead... so why bother? Quote: 2.) Flushing to disk virtual memory from RAM, you're telling us that Disk I/O is not a factor & used in the doing of it in flushing anything out of RAM to the pagefile?? I haven't said anything of the sort. It is, however, a once-off action. It'll happen if and only if the system needs the memory. If the system never needs the memory, it'll never flush them to disk, and you'll get the bonus of slightly quicker printing. Quote: 3.) You're saying that by turning them on, you'red not consuming RAM while loading in the first place??? If your system needs the RAM, it will flush them out of RAM entirely. If it doesn't need the RAM, you benefit from slightly faster printing. Quote: Even flushed to disk, they take up virtual memory space! So? Quote: That data of theirs is more data for the system to read thru to GET to other data that is needed! That unused service daemon data is in the way! It would be if that were how it worked. But fortunately, it isn't. Locating a page in the page table is independent of the amount of data in the pagefile. Locating a page in the pagefile is independent of the amount of data in the pagefile. Quote: (If you don't need them, why load them at all? That's dead weight...) I print once in a while. So, it would seem, do you. So arguably, we do need them. Quote: * Tuning services is as old as DOS & turning off TSR's & is used on Unixes with uneeded running of daemon processes as well DrPizza (or should I say, PeterB). It's normally a false economy. If you need the service running, it's quicker to page it back in from the pagefile than it is to reload it. If your system isn't pressured for RAM, the service will stay in-memory, so will make printing (or whatever) faster. Quote: If you don't need them it's a known performance gaining trick! Known for ages on other Os', & applied to NT based ones effectively! Except it gains you no performance. It doesn't make applications any faster. It doesn't relinquish processor time. It doesn't free up RAM. There is nowhere to make any gains. Quote: Yes, like I illustrated above! Faxing depends on the print spooler, it's called a dependency! That isn't actually what I meant. Some mechanisms (for instance, configuration of Routing and Remote Access) require certain service to be running -- but they don't list those services as dependencies in the services MMC (nor the registry). Quote: Knowing them IS a good idea, what those dependencies are! Well, that's no big trick to find out! Each services TELLS its dependencies in its properties! No, this isn't correct. They merely tell you which services they directly require in order to be able to run. They do not tell you if you need additional services in order to be able to do anything worthwhile. For instance, a number of features require the Remote Registry service to be running, but do not list it in any of their requirements (and do not start it if it's set to manual). Further, they do not give helpful error messages if it isn't running. Similarly, if you're running a Domain Controller, the DNS Server *must* be started before the NetLogon service. This isn't listed as a dependency, as the NetLogon service doesn't actually depend on the DNS Server service (it merely needs to be able to talk to a DNS server -- which, in the case of a Domain Controller, is running on the DC itself). In order to work properly, not only do both the services have to be running, but a dependency has to be manually configured through the registry (to ensure that NetLogon doesn't start before the DNS Server). It would be nice if the dependency information in the registry/services control panel were always accurate, but unfortunately, it isn't. Quote: (That's the trick... Like that one I just illustrated with Print Spooler & Fax services! Again: No big trick, a closer look at them in their properties thru their dependencies tab shows it) No, it doesn't. Alas. Quote: P.S.=> Show us the "false economy" of it... when turning off unused or automatically set daemon processes & TSR's have been known as a performance gainer for AGES on many OS & hardware platforms! apk I have an application that is using precisely 0% of the processor, and occupying precisely 0% of RAM. Explain how performance will be altered by not running the application at all. I won't be able to use any more processor time (because it's not using any). The application isn't forcing me to page to disk more than I would have to (because it's not using any RAM). Where is it bottlenecking my system?

Turning off such services is something of a false economy. If you need them then, obviously, you need them so can't turn them off anyway. If you don't need them, then the OS will flush them out to the pagefile anyway (that is to say, they won't consume any RAM), and will give them no processor cycles (that is to say, they won't consume any processor). And as there can be all sorts of odd interactions between services, it's generally not wise to turn them off unless you're absolutely certain of what a service is, and what things depend on it.

49 Mbytes, I installed in October last year, and occasionally compact the registry hives to trim the thing down a little (I've done it three or four times over the year and it's trimmed about 1 Mbyte each time).

Quote: Originally posted by AlecStaar PeterB, do as you feel like... I just cannot believe you guys did as much posting about me putting me down like you have at your forums when you know I did a decent body of work out online! On the contrary. We've seen what you have to offer -- we don't like it. We think it's technically flawed. We've explained why, giving detailed information about the bugs in the program. Quote: Pete, not everyone gets that 5-5 rating... it's not easy! It can't be that hard.... Quote: You probably COULD do it, but talking about it & not living up to your words? Well, that's my point Pete! The stuff I write -- the stuff I enjoy writing, the stuff people ask me to write, the stuff people pay me to write -- wouldn't get 0/5 at ZDNet. Not because it's not well-written, not because it doesn't do what I (or someone else) wants it to do -- but simply because it's not the kind of thing that's useful to the general populace. Quote: PeterB, I would've figured you (above all of them @ Arstechnica) as being cooler than that... ;( Quote: If you're gay or not as DosFreak told me you were (and I don't care about that, I am straight but one of my best friends is) I still consider you the best one at that site technically! Why you hang there? Sometimes amazes me... honestly! Because it's full of people who know what they're talking about, such as the person who posts as jeh at 2cpu.com. Quote: So, nitpick my timelines... Shoot me for it! lol... come on PeterB, that's a moot point! It was the only point I was attempting to make, until you started on about IP spoofing and your pathetic "challenge". Quote: Don't confuse "SHOW ME YOU CAN" with just talking about it... proof is in the deed, not the saying you can! No. This is not true. Proving that your applications have bugs does not require me to write my own application. Quote: And, against Symantec SystemWorks 2000 also... don't shortchange me! Better than a non-existent one, eh? Show me... show me you or yours can do better, that's all! I don't need to write an application to do those things better. The tools provided with Windows 2000 do the job better already. Quote: Pete, listen... believe me, I have written alot bigger systems & I think you know that! BUT, I only said that in challenge to your putting it down, & am still waiting for you all to show me you can backup your words! We've backed up our words by pointing out where the bugs in your software lie. Quote: Instead of following me around, like some insane fanclub or something... one that harasses me online @ multiple sites repeatedly as you do on your own site, searching "APK" was a funny thing to see for me not too long ago! It's hilarious to see someone go off the deep-end quite so spectacularly as yourself. Quote: That only tells me I really GOT TO YOU ALL, with a simple truth: You can talk alot, about me & others... but when it comes RIGHT DOWN TO IT? Nothing in the way of facing a challenge is done by you all & none of you has the sack to put it out online to see how it is in the greatest/largest testbed of all: Online users! Hardly. I wouldn't trust them to gauge, for instance, how well-written a piece of software was. And I don't believe that they hold software to the same exacting standards as I do. Quote: And lastly? To be rated better than mine was... 12mb worth of code in 30 separate applications integrated by a command center system, that was perfect rated by ZDNet all of last year & never below 15 on the top 50 chart against 1000's of programs in its class... 12 Mbytes of code to do what Windows 2000 can do natively? Why? Quote: Microsoft & Symantec were there with me in the same classification in fact, in the top 10 most of the year with my work. Microsoft's worst utility (bar none) ranks as highly as the cream of your work. Further proof of the lack of discrimination amongst the typical 'net user. Quote: You do better than that? I rest my case there. Show me... If you do, I'd be the FIRST to congratulate you man, honestly! Only rib I'd give you is: "TOOK YOU LONG ENOUGH!", lol... and that would be kidding/ribbing only! But why would I want to? Like I said, I only write software that I want (or that someone's going to pay me to write). And I neither want nor need an application of the same ilk as your application. Quote: Tell that to AOL users that love it... you operate TOO much on your opinion as being the "ONLY" one... like many of your cohorts @ Arstechnica.com do! AOL has many *technical* flaws that are *objectively* problematic. The worst example is their .ART graphic recompression. Quote: Shame on you PeterB... nitpicking is beneath you... lol, or is it? It's quite a big bloody nit. You'd be pretty upset if you were only given 11 months' pay instead of 3 years' worth, wouldn't you? It's not an insignificant difference. Quote: What ranting is that? I only stated facts! False. You claimed it has been more than three years, then more than two years, then more than one year since you offered your challenge. It hasn't been one of these. It has been under 11 months. Quote: PeterB, come on... stop this already, OK? Your being here & doing this in the first place is bad enough! Secondly, anyone can seach "APK" at your forums? And see that you guys even to this day over a year now, are STILL hounding me... and doing worse! Stop already... you look pretty bad! Uh huh. I think it's more likely that they'll see that you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.

Quote: Originally posted by AlecStaar Yup, easy to put down folks work, but when faced with a challenge? You did not live up to it... did you? OR, better yet... could you?? Evidently not! Er... no. That I haven't done something does not mean I could not. I _haven't_ jumped off a cliff. That doesn't mean that I _couldn't_. You would do well to distinguish the two. Quote: But, you keep at me don't you PeterB? Why is that?? It provides some amusement. Quote: Truth from me must have hurt... Funniest part is? You're the ones making it the truth, & your coming here bugging me more only shows it... I merely posted to correct an outright lie that you made -- that you presented your challenge more than three years ago. That's not even close to the truth. Quote: Of course you said "so what" about doing a better one... you can't apparently! Do not confuse "do not want to" for "cannot". Quote: An easy comeback for a pack of cheap shot artists & nuts who follow me around online harassing me as you are now!) I merely corrected an error that you made. Quote: Yea, My software was lousy alright... Yep. Quote: Lousy enough work on my part single handedly to make 5-5 star ratings at ZDNet for over a year last year, & hold a top 10 spot with Microsoft & Symantec products! Uh huh. Holding its own against TweakUI. Well golly! The program that sports one of the poorest UIs in the world and does nothing other than change perhaps a hundred registry settings. Golly gosh. Such worthy competition. I prefer writing things that haven't been written before, and have no simple substitute. Quote: So, where's yours? BIG TALK no action, PeterB... hard at work! Why would I wish to write such a thing? I only write applications that I wish to use myself. I don't wish to use any "APK Tools"-style applications. Quote: No, but you should try to beat it since you put it down so much... that was all I ever asked! Alot of Ars talk, no action! I can put something down, with perfectly legitimate criticisms, without writing something equivalent. Quote: Microsoft also (NEWSFLASH PETERB) also makes patches & corrections... try write something & put it online, the greatest testbed ever, & see how easy it is to do, ok? I have done. Quote: Violating interface guidelines? What about ZoneAlarm or WinAmp?? What about them? Quote: LOL, besides, that's YOUR opinion! I reserve interface creativity rights as the artist creating it! At least I created something folks like alot PeterB! So does AOL. Doesn't make their product worth using. Quote: Try it yourself sometime... see how it is. But, then... I asked you to do that over a year back now... No, not over a year. A bit under 11 months ago. Quote: no results to this day! Just alot of harassment all over the web by your members & now, as evidenced by your doing this? You again! I only sought to correct your error. The rest of the ranting and raving was initiated by you. Quote: PeterB, come on... what about pushing me down the stairs? Tons of other spots at your forums, all anyone has to do is search APK there & see how you people are! Er.... I didn't say anything about pushing you down the stairs. I said that "[APK is] fun. In a 'pushing a mongoloid down the stairs' kind of a way". I'm likening the amusement garnered from your antics to that which might be obtained from pushing retards down flights of stairs -- rather cruel. I have nowhere libelled you.

Quote: Originally posted by AlecStaar Do better, & then call it 2nd rate, that's all I ever said in response to your forum's members putting it down! I know you said it. We all said "so what?". We can see the flaws with your own software. We don't need to write our own to point these flaws out. Even someone who didn't know the first thing about /writing/ software could see the obvious /mistakes/ your software contains (or at least, did the last time I used it... things like hard-coded paths in batch files). Quote: * Just do better & prove your point! Real short & sweet... that way? I do not need to write anything to prove that you use hard-coded paths. I do not need to write anything to prove that you violate the UI guidelines at every opportunity. I do not need to write anything to prove that your software can, and does, generate runtime errors. Quote: You don't have to try libel me etc. all over the web like you do & are doing here right now! Right?? Where, precisely, have I libelled you?

Quote: Originally posted by AlecStaar Read my post above, why do you people from ars CONTINUALLY bother me for? For over a year now on your site & others... why? What? November 2000 is your first post. Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that you posted on the first of November. December 2000. January 2001. February 2001. March 2001. April 2001. May 2001. June 2001. July 2001. August 2001. September 2001. At most, 11 months. Which is not "over a year". It's not even "a year". Quote: One of your members threatened my life before... that took the cake! And you have said that you hope I die of AIDS.... Quote: Hey, If I upset you all? Is that my fault?? I don't think anyone is upset at you. Bemused, yes, but not upset. Quote: I only issued a challenge you have not met... Yet, you continually libel me. At your site, & others. Libel? Where? Your software is second-rate, buggy, and of no value. That's not libel. It's informed opinion. Quote: You put down my work, I said "do better", One doesn't have to "do better" in order to point out the flaws in your own software. Quote: & I am still waiting for that to happen! You're in for a long wait. There's nothing productive in writing GUI front-ends to perfectly good command-line tools. Quote: Yes, I can see that might upset folks I can see that, in front of their own in their own house no less... but I did not start it now, did I? Er, yes, you did, by drawing attention to your own second-rate tools in the first place. Quote: I only finished it with a challenge, as yet, unmet! And it won't ever be met. Because one does not have to meet your challenge to point out that hard-coded paths are bad. To point out that your UIs completely disregard the Windows UI guidelines. To point out that your programs are merely front-ends for perfectly functional (and oftentimes more capable) command-line tools. Quote: * You do this as you are now, over a LONG period & at multiple sites, your presence here only shows more of it PeterB/DrPizza?? P.S.=> I am the guy at your forums, just to let you know? Who often mentions it should stop! One of them at least... apk Uh huh. Which guy, hmm? 'cos I'm looking at the IP addresses of the people who've posted, and I don't see yours anywhere.

I replaced the final octet of your IP address (and its DNS equivalent) with an X; it was the line I emboldened, as well you know.

Quote: Originally posted by AlecStaar Not at all... I don't know what that email's about for one thing, & anyone can spoof an IP or send mail off an anonymous email server PeterB! Not TOO hard is it?? Spoofing an IP address doesn't do a blind thing to help for forging e-mail. There's the inconvenient issue of SMTP requiring a series of messages to be passed between client and server in order to send the mail; the problem with using a spoofed IP to do this is that the server will return packets not to the spoofing machine, but instead to the machine it believes it's communicating with -- namely, the one with the IP address being spoofed. Quote: (Especially on Linux boxes... lookup IPMasquerading! If in fact, that is the truth at all!) Ah, but IPMasq works quite differently. The translation is transparent to the server, which communicates only with the machine originating the message; it's up to the router at the client end to make sense of it all. Not applicable in this case. There's the additional issue of acquiring your IP address (it's not particularly difficult, true, but that's only because I knew what I was looking for), and then a question of motive. Quote: Nope... you guys STILL follow me around, bugging me, posting libellous things about me on your forums, to this day in fact PeterB! The URL above shows it. Grow up you folks have problems PeterB... Which URL shows what? All I've shown is an e-mail which coincidentally originated from the same IP address as you happen to be posting from, and demonstrated that your claim of "3 years", and your revised claim of "2 years" is factually inaccurate.

Two years? What? Can you not count? You first posted at Ars Technica on 20th November, 2000. http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic...&search.y=0 That isn't even 1 year ago. Sent any nice e-mails recently? I notice that your IP address (66.67.71.X) is the same as sent me this charming little e-mail: Quote: Return-Path: <phuqu@youfaggot.com> Delivered-To: peter@inkvine.fluff.org Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by inkvine.fluff.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C23D246825 for <peter@inkvine.fluff.org>; Sat, 29 Sep 2001 21:16:13 +0100 (BST) Received: from win32 (syr-66-67-71-X.twcny.rr.com [66.67.71.X]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with SMTP id f8TKFBH14344 for <peter@inkvine.fluff.org>; Sat, 29 Sep 2001 16:15:12 -0400 (EDT) From: phuqu@youfaggot.com Message-ID: <1001780159@win32> Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 16:15:58 -0400 Subject: Hi there butt-pumping homo To: peter@inkvine.fluff.org You miserable done nothing with your life little homo, you little losers are nothing in this field, and nothing in life I hope you catch aids you ****ed up mistake of nature. That is what homos are, freaks of nature and everyone who talks to you? From now on, realize this: It is what they think of you, you genetic error! Damaged goods that likes dicks and is a man Ring any bells?

;( Quote: 3 years later now, Uhhh. APK. Ars Technica's message boards haven't been running for three years. You couldn't have issued us this challenge three years ago, even if you wanted to.

http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic...mp;m=5670926301