Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29

Thread: Microsoft starts to mess with Sysinternals tools

  1. #16
    <script>alert(0)</script> disavowed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    1,281
    Quote Originally Posted by LLXX View Post
    Well, it seems compilers have gotten worse. Just look at the sizes of the runtime crap that gets injected into every executable, and compare between e.g. MSC '97 and the latest Visual Studio. I've seen a tenfold difference
    Hard drive space is "cheaper than" processing speed (yes, I know they can't be compared directly since they are very different entities). However, because HD space is relatively cheap, better compilers will optimize for speed as opposed to size. As such, it's not surprising that newer compilers will generate larger executables.
    The other factor is security enhancements. Examples:
    1. Using the /GS switch (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8dbf701c.aspx) adds more code to a binary.
    2. Perhaps older versions of SysInternals tools were using insecure functions like strcat(...) instead of strcat_s(...). By replacing insecure functions with more secure functions, your code size typically increases.

  2. #17
    Most of the code increase is explained by they new EULA, which, as I mentioned, is an RTF text just around 100KB in size.

  3. #18
    <script>alert(0)</script> disavowed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    1,281
    Yes, I realize that
    I was addressing LLXX's quoted comment.

  4. #19

    Hmmm....

    Quote Originally Posted by disavowed View Post
    Hard drive space is "cheaper than" processing speed ...However, because HD space is relatively cheap, better compilers will optimize for speed as opposed to size...As such, it's not surprising that newer compilers will generate larger executables.
    So does this mean when we have terabyte disks available, MS compilers will optimze executables to "just" 1 GB?

    Peace,

    Have Phun
    Blame Microsoft, get l337 !!

  5. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    So does this mean when we have terabyte disks available, MS compilers will optimze executables to "just" 1 GB?
    If by executables you mean the typical "Hello, world" application then I'd say you are right on target.

    Anything substantial would undoubtedly require significantly more storage.


    Quote Originally Posted by disavowed
    Hard drive space is "cheaper than" processing speed (yes, I know they can't be compared directly since they are very different entities). However, because HD space is relatively cheap, better compilers will optimize for speed as opposed to size.
    The end game being to create the worlds fastest application by generating code of inifinte size?

  6. #21
    The end game being to create the worlds fastest application by generating code of inifinte size?
    Lookup tables for every possible outcome of your code. No more precalc times needed, everything is now O(log n) through hash tables... Well it's an idea, although not necessarily a good one.
    Still here...

  7. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by CluelessNoob View Post
    If by executables you mean the typical "Hello, world" application then I'd say you are right on target.
    One really does begin to wonder why a compiler output forty-thousand bytes for that when twenty-one would've been sufficient. (b4 09 ba 08 01 cd 21 c3 48 65 6c 6c 6f 20 77 6f 72 6c 64 21 24 I've practically memorised that thing and yes, I still know how to write in ML )

    True story. Seeing that for the first time was what got me into Asm and really provoked me into thinking how efficient software could be and why exactly were the compilers doing it wrong.

  8. #23
    Teach, Not Flame Kayaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    4,085
    Blog Entries
    5
    You might be interested then, or already know about
    (saw this on Matt Pietrik's blog)

    ..write the smallest PE file that downloads a file from the Internet and executes it..
    http://www.phreedom.org/solar/code/tinype/

  9. #24
    Now that's a clever program. Doesn't work on my 98SE system though... just GPFs explorer and the kernel.

  10. #25
    <script>alert(0)</script> disavowed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    1,281
    Quote Originally Posted by LLXX View Post
    Doesn't work on my 98SE system though
    Are you seriously still using 98?!

  11. #26
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,487
    Blog Entries
    15
    Are you seriously still using 98?!
    i'm seriously still using windows 95

    what would you run on cyrix 32 mb 166 mhz ?

  12. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by blabberer View Post
    i'm seriously still using windows 95

    what would you run on cyrix 32 mb 166 mhz ?
    Probably an older Linux distro, Slackware 0.99 ran great on my 66MHz 486-DX2 with 32MB of DRAM.

    Also Coherent 3 or 4, but its doubtful there are more than a dozen people alive who remember Coherent.

  13. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by disavowed View Post
    Are you seriously still using 98?!
    Of course, for the things that don't need (or can't be done in) XP.

  14. #29
    davealover
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by blabberer View Post
    i'm seriously still using windows 95

    what would you run on cyrix 32 mb 166 mhz ?
    Hi all.

    Still using it with i486DX4 100Mhz, 20Mbytes memory!
    I promise that I have read the FAQ and tried to use the Search to answer my question.

Similar Threads

  1. How to set a breakpointer on a button clicked mess
    By yokishiro in forum OllyDbg Support Forums
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2004, 02:46
  2. IAT resolver beta test starts now
    By tsehp in forum Advanced Reversing and Programming
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: January 13th, 2001, 09:10
  3. IAT resolver beta test starts now
    By tsehp in forum Tools of Our Trade (TOT) Messageboard
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 3rd, 2001, 06:22

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •