backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 83 comment(s) - last by overzealot.. on Nov 7 at 12:29 AM

A screenshot of the error.  (Source: ZDNet)
The new Windows Vista still has a significant bug or two

Early adopters of Windows Vista have experienced a rather bumpy ride.  Facing public outcry, Microsoft agreed recently to let OEMs bundle XP with computers as opposed to Vista, a reversal of their previous policy, as reported at DailyTech.

Now a major error in Vista has been found that may affect a number of power users or anyone who, in the words of Microsoft, has "lots of files." Microsofts support pages for Windows Vista feature this jewel, featured on ZDNet.

When you use Windows Vista's Windows Explorer to try to copy files to another Windows computer, the following message may greet you:
"Out of memory
There is not enough memory to complete this operation."
According to Microsoft this can occur if "the files include extended attributes." Or, more humorously, if "you copy lots of files in a single operation."

Ironically users must specially request a hotfix in order to fix this problem which seems like it could frequently occur, as many users do copy "lots of files" between computers on a network.  The problems are due to a memory leak in the Windows OLE component.

The fix was originally planned for inclusion with Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1).  Unfortunately the beta version of SP1 does not contain the fix, so it appears to have been ditched from Vista SP1.

The magic number, it turns out is around 16,400 files.  These do not have to all be copied at once.  If a user copies this many or more files at any time between reboots, the user will frequently get errors. 

"Black screens of death" (BSODs) have also been reported with the error.  Ironically, early reports indicate that the file size does not necessarily matter in whether or not 16,400 files will cause the memory error.

The problem is apparently excaberated by Kapersky Antivirus, which somehow makes the crashes more likely to happen, according to reports.

Windows Vista also has issues with selecting more that 1,500 files.  Doing so will cause dramatic memory spiking and slowdown.  This was another issue that was supposed to be fixed in SP1, but is not currently included in the Beta, so also appears to have been scrapped.

Windows Vista users have many gripes, one of which is the high memory requirements of the system, and overall problems in memory useage and inefficiencies.  Microsoft requires 1 GB of memory to run its OS, but users with less than 2 GB will experience less satisfactory performance.

As Microsoft struggles with its Vista woes, it can take solace that users will likely simply go back to its other product -- Windows XP.

Update 10/17/2007:
As some posters noted, it is important to differentiate that this only occurs when you copy files from one computer to another.  This is a typical scenario in a business or home network setting, so it is still significant to many users. 

Again, this is not fixed in the Service Pack 1 beta, though a hot fix is available upon request.  Note the crash does not occur during every copy, but does occur more frequently when running Kapersky, as noted.  This article only intends to point out a current flaw in the Vista OS and not to discount Windows Vista or Microsoft's overall efforts to produce quality software products.  Microsoft has indicated its intention to fix this error, and will likely include the hotfix in a future service pack, possible SP2, though this may be some time in the future.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Not just copy
By Murst on 10/17/2007 12:03:20 PM , Rating: 3
There are lots of issues in vista, from copy (as this article covered) to other basic stuff like delete.

For example, open up command prompt and navigate to a directory on your file system (make sure it has other directories/files in it). Now, open explorer, and navigate to the same directory that you have in the command prompt.

Now, shift+del the folder in explorer. You'll get an error saying "Could not find this item. This is no longer located in <location>. Verify the item's location and try again." If you close the command prompt, the error goes away.

Stuff like this is just annoying in Vista right now.




RE: Not just copy
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/17/2007 12:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
*Tested*

I was able to delete just fine, no error.

Any more details about this bug, maybe I did something differently?


RE: Not just copy
By Murst on 10/17/2007 12:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
Strange, I've done this on two different computers at work.

You sure you have the directory open in command prompt, and then you've attempted to delete the directory in explorer?

Like, go to c:\test in command, and try to delete c:\test in explorer. On both versions of Vista Business at work, using Shift+Delete causes this error.


RE: Not just copy
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 12:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
I get an error "Folder In Use" which is correct. That's on a fully-updated Vista Ultimate, and also on a different machine with Vista SP1 Beta.


RE: Not just copy
By Murst on 10/17/2007 12:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
You're not holding "Shift" when you delete. If you hold down "shift" and press the "del" key, you do not get the error "folder in use".


RE: Not just copy
By Murst on 10/17/2007 12:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
fyi:
shift + del = permanent delete (no recycle bin)


RE: Not just copy
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 12:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, yes I do, regardless if I use shift or not.


RE: Not just copy
By Murst on 10/17/2007 12:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm... maybe its something to do w/ our policies on the network then. Its definetally a bug here though (easy to fix, but still annoying).


RE: Not just copy
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/17/2007 12:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
I'm on Vista Ultimate 64, Workgroup not Domain. It may very well be something with Domain Policies.


RE: Not just copy
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 12:46:32 PM , Rating: 2
We have a domain here, so it's got to be more than that.


RE: Not just copy
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/2007 2:05:54 PM , Rating: 4
Alright,
I know you guys gave me some flak for this blog. I am sorry I did not clarify that the transfer was between computers.

I know that Windows Server 2003 is a valid business solution, but many businesses are switching to Vista, so this bug could be a problem.

It may not happen that often. However, what follows are severe consequences including menu and tab disappearance, reboots, and black screens of death, which appear to be solely linked to and triggered by the memory leak.

A lot of programs have memory leaks, but Windows is typically better than most and typically held to a slightly higher standard because of this, and because it operates on an OS level as opposed to a traditional leaker like Firefox.

Besides..its just an article, pointing out a bug found. If you love Windows so much that you can't bear to read about bugs found in it, don't read it. If you have constructive criticism or observations terrific. But please don't simply discredit the article since you disagree with it, as I am trying to present an issue that may be important to some users and may result in frustration and inconvenience. If these users premptively request the hotfix, they can save themselves potential hassles or better yet, motivate Microsoft to include the fix in SP1.

I would also like to note that even though this article is a blog, it is less editorial and negative towards Vista than some headline articles such as the XP OEM article I linked. Overall I feel that Vista is relatively solid and is certainly headed in the right direction. However, when there is a problem, it should be noted, I also feel.

Thanks for your time.


RE: Not just copy
By TomZ on 10/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: Not just copy
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/2007 2:14:32 PM , Rating: 4
Again I feel the blog points out a legitimate problem.

Obviously the article is factually accurate, esp. after I clarified the exact situation that bug occurs in.

As to the slant, like I said in the update note, I personally think Vista is headed in the right direction.

If anything, coverage like this motivates them to include the fix in the next SP and avoid worse publicity when someone makes a stink about lost data.

I will try to publish something good about M-Soft in the near future to even the cosmic balance.


RE: Not just copy
By TomZ on 10/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: Not just copy
By porkpie on 10/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: Not just copy
By Oregonian2 on 10/18/2007 2:11:22 PM , Rating: 4
Sounds like it's probably not a problem except for those who do silly things like backing up directories or disks to a networked fileserver. Just don't do backups and one is fine!

I'll do that manually sometimes, esp. when replacing a disk.

Ick, glad I've XP.


RE: Not just copy
By TomZ on 10/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Not just copy
By aos007 on 10/18/2007 6:29:55 PM , Rating: 4
Exactly HOW would they reach a wrong conclusion????? This is exactly the kind of news I like to hear as it will help my decision about when to switch to Vista - if ever.

I copy huge number of files on my HOME network on a REGULAR basis. E.g. music files or photos or various PDF datasheets or simply backup/restore from one machine to another after I reinstall windows, linux or whatever because I like to fiddle with hardware and buy new motherboards/CPUs often. First, Vista had a problem with slow network copying. Now it has a problem with large number of files. These are NOT minor problems AT ALL. Copying files is a BASIC feature of an OS.

Especially if you read the article: while the number of files required to trigger bug seems high at over 16 thousand, the effect is CUMULATIVE as long as you don't reboot! Even if you dismiss a single operation taking 16000 files, it's not a stretch to get there if you keep your machine up for a while.

Besides, if you're actually doing any work you can easily have project folders with thousands if not tens of thousands of files (source code, object code, libraries, HTML documentation, log files, test run results etc.)- if you're a programmer as you claim to be you should know that. And I haven't seen any indication that the machine you're copying to or from needs to be Vista - where's Windows 2003 even coming into play here?


RE: Not just copy
By TomZ on 10/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: Not just copy
By overzealot on 11/7/2007 12:21:40 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, in the Microsoft statement they make no mention of KAV, so you only need to meet 3 conditions.
Maybe KAV adds extended attributes? My past experience with it hasn't been particularly pleasant (far too intrusive, doesn't work with steam community), although it is good at detection.


RE: Not just copy
By Murst on 10/17/2007 2:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't worry too much about comments. If all bloggers here worried about the comments, there'd be no bloggers on DT =/

I've also noticed that you and masher have pretty much stopped commenting on your blogs. Was there a policy change at DT?


RE: Not just copy
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/2007 2:25:47 PM , Rating: 4
Naw, I just wanted to put more energy into writing my own articles and making sure I don't have any silly errors.

Also, I don't want to be pidgeonholed as "the environmental writer". But you will see a new GW article from me coming soon that I am sure Masher will rebuke. =D

I respect Mike from the standpoint that hes got a position and he is doing his best to support it with evidence and defend it. No matter how much I disagree with his position, that is what I am try to do as well, and I think thats the right way to try to prove your point.

I think we both get a bit carried away sometimes, but its all in good fun.


RE: Not just copy
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/18/2007 8:43:54 AM , Rating: 2
I will point out that Vista is not a server. Just like XP was never used as a server and never will be, it lacks a whole slew of components and services a server would require.

If they want a "Vista" server, it will be Server 2008. The XP "Server" was Server 2003.

Jason, learn your Windows Flavors =/


RE: Not just copy
By Screwballl on 10/17/2007 12:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
This is another reason why Vista was rushed out and not thoroughly tested. I remember even beta XP never having this many problems.
I used Vista for 6 months and decided never again. I am happy with my XP/FC7 dual boot setup.

Hopefully they will do better with Vienna.


RE: Not just copy
By paulpod on 10/17/2007 9:15:20 PM , Rating: 3
Everything about the new Explorer is worse than the powerful, yet simple jewel that comes with XP. XP's Explorer is so much better than MAC's equivelent it keeps me from taking MAC seriously as tool for managing complex file systems.

Vista's Explorer can not copy large files from a network share at Gigabit speeds, the expand/collapse symbols are very hard to hit, you can't select multiple files in a detail list with wrap while in single-click mode, hover selection does not work in single-click mode, and the UI is just WAY to overloaded and bloated.

(By the way, once perfected, single-click mode with shift-hover/ctrl-hover selection is BY FAR the most efficient object management method in any OS.)

Why can't they simple port XP's Explorer and offer that as a standalone file manager?


Explorer
By cochy on 10/17/2007 12:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well I didn't read the article yet, but just a piece of advice when trying to copy/move/delete tens of thousands of file...Use the command line!

Explorer was never good with handling huge amounts of files. A weak system would normally hang for a while or explorer might just crash. There isn't anything new here.




RE: Explorer
By cochy on 10/17/2007 12:34:02 PM , Rating: 2
I should be more specific, Explorer may hang when trying to display the files at first. Anyway rule of thumb is use command line for these types of operations.


RE: Explorer
By TomZ on 10/17/07, Rating: 0
RE: Explorer
By cochy on 10/17/2007 3:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
Try opening up a folder with 100,000 files in it and compare how much time is wasted between Explorer and Command-line ;)


RE: Explorer
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 3:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
Well, showing a list of the available files ('dir') for a folder like that is not going to be quick or painless either. And you won't even be able to see the entire list on the command line.

Anyway, the only thing that should be done with a directory containing 100,000 files is to organize them into something reasonable. :o)


Not necessarily between computers
By Sketcher on 10/17/2007 4:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
"There is not enough memory to complete this operation."

Got that error when attempting to use Windows Explorer transferring large amounts of files (over 30,000) from one hard drive to another WITHIN THE SAME COMPUTER; same SATA controller. AV and thumbnail viewing turned off. 2GB RAM

-Transfer went without a hitch via command line(Fast).
-Also transferred via MS Synctoy (very slow) but no hiccups.




RE: Not necessarily between computers
By Christopher1 on 10/20/2007 4:20:18 AM , Rating: 2
You got this error when doing that? Funny, I had to transfer all my picture files (40,000+ at last count) to a new computer and I had no problem doing them all at once..... maybe this only happens in certain situations, like trying to do this over a wired network (I used my wireless connection to do this transfer).

There are some pretty big bugs with Windows Explorer that I have found in Windows Vista: a bug where folders randomly corrupt and cannot be open by Explorer but can be opened by ACDSee 9 or 10; a problem where when you have renamed a file Windows Explorer doesn't correctly let go of control of that file, so when you try to delete it later on in the same session after burning it to disk it won't delete properly; and a seemingly....... random as anything error in Windows Explorer where it crashes when it is trying to get previews for video files that used the Divx codec.


By Christopher1 on 10/20/2007 4:26:43 AM , Rating: 2
To talk about this problem some more...... in all honesty, how many people are going to transfer more than 16,800 files at a time? Personally, if I am transferring that many files I usually zip them up into archives (thereby cutting down on the number of files, which is standard practice when I am backing up things besides programs) in order to get around some of these problems and keep files from getting damaged during transfer, like they sometimes do when being transferred outside of archives.


I've had this issue...
By HilbertSpace on 10/17/2007 1:06:47 PM , Rating: 2
... when I've copied lots of small data files over a VPN connection.
Also if i'm copying/moving lots of small files Vista will slow to a crawl, and can take hours to do it.
Not to mention the built-in unzip utility...




RE: I've had this issue...
By Christopher1 on 10/20/2007 4:22:42 AM , Rating: 2
DO NOT USE THE BUILT-IN UNZIP UTILITY! Please, save yourself a LOAD of time and heartache, and just get WinZip or WinRar (the second of which I use).

There were too many problems with the built-in unzipping utility in XP and those problems have continued into Vista for some reason.


I was thinking somethign was up
By Nik00117 on 10/17/2007 3:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
As i was reading this article I remeber how I had backed up all my music files which is above the "magic number" and I prob went another 3-4 days without a reboot after that, and I deal with a lot of movies, organizing my files and tv shows and so forth. So reaching 16,400 especially when your first setting up your rig if you got a large MP3 collection combined with years of texts docs and logs and 100s of movies on top of all of this picutres. Hitting that 16400 isn't going to occur often.

HOWEVER if its only through network I couldn't see that happening to many times, mainly because typically I would only transfer 3-4 files a time, like 3-4 older movies to the central server in my house type deal chances are i'd be forced to reboot to slove a random issue or do an update any how.




Its only when copying ?
By Silver2k7 on 10/17/2007 8:38:43 PM , Rating: 2
I did move about 30,000 files from one disk to another and that worked atleast.

but vista has a bit too many errors.. its seems too easily to get 100% cpu usage and all you can do is [ctrl]+[alt]+[del] and shutdown/reboot.. or in worst case hit the reset button.

You can start the task manager but often all you can do is watch the swirly donut icon and press reset button.. SP1 where are you :/




By cheetah2k on 10/17/2007 9:32:30 PM , Rating: 2
While not related to the error in the article..

I just wish Windows, Nvidia and Apple got together and fixed that RAID Access Error when using Quicktime or iTunes on an NV RAID mobo, so that i didnt get those "RAID Access Error" messages anymore...

Gets kinda anoying as the error messages come thick and fast when i'm trying to upload more MP3's into itunes and sync with my iPhone.... ARGH!!




Amazing
By mindless1 on 10/18/2007 3:45:07 AM , Rating: 2
It's a bit amazing that this issue is still news to some people today.

This problem is substantial enough that Vista should have been recalled. It is a glaring defect and laughable in an modern OS to exist.

Don't get me wrong, many may assume I hate MS. Not at all, they have developed some great products over the years. What I hate is that their business practices have eliminated choices for other great products.

Let's fact it, the market was sufficiently large and with enough profit potential for all of our needs (globally) to be met. Instead we still have only a cookie cutter solution. Long live 'nix.




wierd security measures
By howtochooseausername on 10/18/2007 2:06:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yhea Vista shows lots of wierd things. I have an HDD from an XP installation and I couldn't browse the files in my old desktop via the Explorer window, but was able to do it from the command prompt.




BSOD
By odiHnaD on 10/18/2007 3:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked "BSOD" stood for Blue Screen Of Death.

Is this "Black Screen Of Death" and new thing in Vista?

I've gotten a couple of Blue Screens (between my laptop and my comp at home) but never a Black Screen (memory dump screen that is).




FUD
By TomZ on 10/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: FUD
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/17/2007 12:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not usually one to smack another writer here, but Jason did you read the link you posted?

quote:
When you try to copy files from a Windows Vista-based computer to another computer by using Windows Explorer, you may receive the following error message:

So as you clearly decided not to state, its from one physical machine to another. This would effect a small minority of Vista users. Dunno about all of you guys but it's pretty rare for me to dump tens of thousands of files from one system to another unless I was in an office setting and I was a server.... but Windows Server 2003 is what that is for.


RE: FUD
By clovell on 10/17/2007 12:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
Would this be a problem if you were streaming media from a Vista box?


RE: FUD
By Murst on 10/17/2007 12:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
You need to be using explorer to copy the files, so no.


RE: FUD
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 12:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
I've copied "large quantities of files" like this tons of times in Vista and never seen this error. It is obviously an obscure problem which is why nobody's ever heard of it (until now) and why Microsoft apparently didn't include it in SP1. Obviously if it was affecting a significant number of people Microsoft would have addressed it.


RE: FUD
By therealnickdanger on 10/17/2007 12:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
I was gonna say, I have successfully copied multiple hard drives via Explorer with my Vista machines without fail.


RE: FUD
By cochy on 10/17/2007 12:44:21 PM , Rating: 3
I must agree. The article is highly misleading in the way it's presented. If one didn't click on the Microsoft link it would seem as though this error would effect copying files around ones own system.


RE: FUD
By Martimus on 10/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: FUD
By Martimus on 10/17/2007 12:57:15 PM , Rating: 4
Tom, I wanted to apologize for this remark. It was uncalled for.


RE: FUD
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 1:12:52 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for that, but it's really not necessary. I expect some flaming for speaking out.


RE: FUD
By Martimus on 10/17/2007 9:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
It is all about the way you say it.


RE: FUD
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 12:43:27 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Early adopters of Windows Vista have experienced a rather bumpy ride.

What do you base this on, Jason? Based on anecdotes? Well there are also lots of anecdotes flying around from people who have have few or no problems with Vista. What does that tell you?
quote:
According to Microsoft this can occur if "the files include extended attributes." Or, more humorously, if:"you copy lots of files in a single operation."

Wrong, the two conditions BOTH have to be true - AND not OR. How many times do you think the average user, or even a power user, will copy more than 16K files with extended attributes? Possible, yes; likely, no. As I said in another post, I've done tons of large-scale file copy/move operations and I've never run into this problem. I also never shut down or reboot my Vista machines.
quote:
"Black screens of death" (BSODs) have also been reported with the error. Ironically, early reports indicate that the file size does not necessarily matter in whether or not 16,400 files will cause the memory error.

This is where your blog post turns even more irresponsible. Who is giving these reports? Are they a source of reliable information? How do they know this is related, and not some other issue? Most BSODs are driver bugs - you sure it's not a driver bug?
quote:
The problem is apparently excaberated by Kapersky Antivirus, which somehow makes the crashes more likely to happen, according to reports.

OK, so now you are bringing in the possibility that the BSOD and/or the other issues are due to a problem with Kaspersky - are you sure this is a Vista problem?
quote:
Windows Vista also has issues with selecting more that 1,500 files. Doing so will cause dramatic memory spiking and slowdown.

Can you give us a link to the KB article for this? Again, I do large copy file operations all the time and I've never noticed "dramatic memory spiking and slowdown." (Are you sure you're not just being "dramatic"?) And again, are you so naive to think that Microsoft would scrap a fix that affected a lot of users in such a strong way?
quote:
Microsoft requires 1 GB of memory to run its OS, but users with less than 2 GB will experience poor performance.

Nice blanket statement, but wrong. I've got a couple older machines here running Vista Ultimate with 1GB that do not exhibit "poor performance." These machines run the same under Vista as they did under XP.
quote:
As Microsoft struggles with its Vista woes, it can take solace that users will likely simply go back to its other product -- Windows XP.

Where do you get the impression that Microsoft is "struggling" with "Vista woes." I don't see that at all. Vista is selling well at the OEM and retail level, they are continuing to work on fixes, they will be releasing SP1 soon, etc. Work on the next OS continues on quietly behind the scenes.

Also, do you have any stats on users "going back to XP." I've only heard a few anecdotes about that - I've heard at least as many anecdotes by people who, like myself, see no reason and would actually hate to go back to XP.


RE: FUD
By Vanilla Thunder on 10/17/07, Rating: 0
RE: FUD
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 1:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
So does it being a "blog" justify blowing an obscure bug completely out of proportion, repeating a bunch of unsubstantiated statements taken (plagerized) directly from a ZDNet blog post?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=829


RE: FUD
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 10/17/2007 1:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
The excerpts from ZDNet are certainly not plagiarized. They are quite properly cited.


RE: FUD
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 1:57:17 PM , Rating: 2
Where is there proper citation? The only citation I see is of the source of the image. Maybe I'm overlooking something...?

On another note, the ZDNet blog also states the following:
quote:
Vista’s file handling problems has been occurs when a Vista user (running Kaspersky Anti Virus 6 or 7) tries to copy a large number of files (~16,400).

Jason should have noted that. If I read this correctly, they are saying that only users of KAV will see this issue, even though the core issue is actually a kernel memory leak bug.


RE: FUD
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 2:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
...the point being that this is actually a very obscure bug. In order to come across it, ALL of the following conditions need to be met:

1. Running KAV, and
2. Copying >16,400 files, and
3. Files having extended attributes, and
4. Copying between different machines

The odds of all those conditions being true and actually manifesting this bug...very small. Much ado about nothing.


RE: FUD
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 2:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The excerpts from ZDNet are certainly not plagiarized. They are quite properly cited.

Hey, that's not fair - saying they are properly cited, and then updating the article to add the citation! :o)


RE: FUD
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/2007 2:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
Tom, the citation was there before, under the link to the video on ZD Net which is embedded in the article. Kris just moved it and added the text "ZD Net".

I did not quote the ZD Net article, I should point out. I did take the BSOD info and the 16,400 info from them, but all the writing is originally as is my links to past D-Tech stories and analysis.

Most info on the bug I actually took from M-soft's own page on it, which I also cited.

Sorry you didnt like the article 0_o

I know you occasionally like my articles (and have said so), so keep reading, and I hope my update helped to make this one a little better.

I'm not trying to be biased, just discuss a possible issue and if anything help M-Soft move in the right direction by motivating users to request the bug fix (which is available) to prempt any problems or hurt feelings.


RE: FUD
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 2:22:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Tom, the citation was there before, under the link to the video on ZD Net which is embedded in the article. Kris just moved it and added the text "ZD Net".

I hate to appear argumentative, but I just don't see that. I have the original article in another browser window, and there is no citation to ZDNet anywhere except for the image citation.
quote:
I did not quote the ZD Net article, I should point out. I did take the BSOD info and the 16,400 info from them, but all the writing is originally as is my links to past D-Tech stories and analysis.

Where did you get the information about Kaspersky being involved?

How about the issue about selecting ~1500 files and serious "spiking" in memory usage?
quote:
I'm not trying to be biased

Maybe you need to try harder. I maintain my original criticism that the blog post is basically FUD. Discussing some obscure file copy bug and bringing up a few other unsubstantiated issues while at the same time talking about Microsoft's "woes" along with a statement that users can always go back to XP - that's plain FUD - and it is certainly biased. Heck, you might as well called them "M$" while you were at it. :o)


RE: FUD
By Murst on 10/17/2007 2:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that this is a blog and not a research paper...


RE: FUD
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 2:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yes of course, however, bloggers should still be held to some standard of integrity and honesty, right? Especially on a site like DT. And my specific issue is that Jason has basically repeated a number of statements made at another blog which may or may not be true. Jason has not provided any backing for any of his statements beyond the original Microsoft KB - and he even quoted that wrong (the conditions are "and" not "or").


RE: FUD
By Ringold on 10/17/2007 3:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes of course, however, bloggers should still be held to some standard of integrity and honesty, right?


Bloggers whine and moan when they aren't treated as real journalists in various situations, so if they want to get the full respect of a journalist of the days of olde then I agree. Of course, in an editorial they can spin to their hearts desire, and do, but that didn't appear to be the purpose of this. Nothing necessarily wrong with holding peoples feet to the fire online; it just doesn't happen so clearly in traditional media. If there's anything good at all about 'citizen journalism' then perhaps it's this.


RE: FUD
By Rollomite on 10/17/2007 3:14:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
and it is certainly biased.


You have to be joking. You act as if other blog/news articles on this site aren't biased? I beg to differ, as I find it to be quite a regular occurence.


RE: FUD
By Rollomite on 10/17/2007 3:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it does.

R


RE: FUD
By mars777 on 10/17/2007 8:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How many times do you think the average user, or even a power user, will copy more than 16K files with extended attributes?


I'm a business user. That amount goes in about 1 days.
Ascent capture scan process and realease script can do that in about 6 hours.
So basically i would be able to have the computer on not more than that... hmm.

Hopefully Xp still gives good value for business.

quote:
OK, so now you are bringing in the possibility that the BSOD and/or the other issues are due to a problem with Kaspersky - are you sure this is a Vista problem?


Kaspersky runs in user mode. If anything running in user mode can crash the kernel this is a CLEAR indicator that the OS is wrong from its roots. So i think this is not the case.

quote:
Microsoft is "struggling" with "Vista woes."


This is true at least in Europe.

Just my 2c.


RE: FUD
By mindless1 on 10/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: FUD
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 7:18:19 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, I'm biased of course - I personally like Vista. So what?

But to get to the heart of the matter, why don't you address my points if you think they are incorrect instead of name-calling? I mean, if you think I'm being "deceitful," then call me on the points in particular. After all, that's exactly what I'm doing with Jason's article.


RE: FUD
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 2:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thanks Jason for my daily fill of FUD - and then some. This is far and away the worst article I've ever read on DT. Truly irresponsible.

Sorry, Jason - I overreacted a bit with that. I certainly do not like the article, but I think I went a bit overboard with that statement.


RE: FUD
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/2007 3:04:21 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks Tom, I will in turn, try to be a little less editorial/try not to come off as too biased.

I appreciate your opinion.

I will try to write an article on something positive about Microsoft in the near future to level out the cosmic balance. =D


RE: FUD
By noxipoo on 10/17/2007 3:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
You don't have to like Microsoft, plenty of people do not. But you need to provide accurate info. On first read the article did sound like if someone copies lots of files Vista will crash.


RE: FUD
By KewlWhip on 10/18/2007 10:13:25 AM , Rating: 3
Just wanted to add some additional info for everyone to ponder.

One poster indicated that XP is less buggy than Vista. While this is true today, when XP was first released it had twice the number of known bugs than when Vista released. People also felt that XP was bloated and required too much memory. XP has grown into a very stable platform but it took time.

As for the impact of this bug, several very large global companies are currently rolling out Vista and have not been affected by this bug in anyway. I know this as I am a Microsoft Technical Account Manager. While this is a bug and we will fix it, I do not have one customer that has been affected by it.

Thanks for your time.


RE: FUD
By Proteusza on 10/18/2007 11:42:48 AM , Rating: 2
I'm happy that an MS person was given the green to respond.

I do think you should have done much more work on this OS release - is it not reasonable to expect software to work out of the box anymore? I dont see why Vista was released early, with the sheer number of issues that have come to light, and their severity, I wonder why it was released in such a state.


RE: FUD
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 12:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are overstating the "problems" with Vista. Most of the reported "problems" with Vista is that it is a new/updated OS which requires changes to some applications and drivers. There is no way for Microsoft to get all the applications and drivers to be updated by third parties without releasing the OS. It's a chicken-and-egg thing.

And yes of course, there are bugs - all non-trivial software ships with bugs. What is important is that most of the bugs are relatively obscure (i.e., all the important issues have already been fixed), and that Microsoft stay on top of emerging issues and that they stay proactive and issue updates to fix them. Which is exactly what I see happening.


RE: FUD
By sxr7171 on 10/19/2007 12:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
Releasing the fix in SP2 whenever that may come out (1-2 years from now?) is not "keeping on top of emerging issues." That fix should be part of SP1. It makes me wonder what the heck they are actually fixing in SP1 if they can't even fix a basic file copy bug that they knew about.

So bugs happen, but this obscure hotfix crap is a bit much. Why can't the fix be easily available to everyone and be a part of automatic updates or SP1?


RE: FUD
By KewlWhip on 10/18/2007 1:07:51 PM , Rating: 4
Proteusza, I don't want to be rude or insulting so please do not take my comments that way. By your post I would have to assume that you fall into one of the following categories; young, not in the IT industry, or new to IT. Say this not to mock you but to illustrate the following.

Vista released with fewer bugs than XP (more than 50% less), XP released with fewer bugs than 2000, so on and so on. If you've been in the industry for a while then you'll know the following to be true; with each OS Microsoft releases there are driver issues as we really on third parties for these and lots of people state that it's bloated, memory, footprint, CPU utilization, etc. This happens with every OS. As time progresses third parties create drivers and improve on them, bugs are fixed and service packs are released. XP is great, it's fast and stable but it wasn't when it was first released. Just look at the hardware you're running XP now versus when it launched. I don't mean to beat a dead horse but you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. With each new OS Microsoft has reduced the number of known bugs at launch (usually by 50%) and the fixes and service packs are released more quickly.

Bugs are a part of software and always will be, end of story.


RE: FUD
By overzealot on 11/7/2007 12:29:17 AM , Rating: 2
With the obvious exception of Windows ME, I tend to agree.


Give us real news ... Colbert for President!
By Kuroyama on 10/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: Give us real news ... Colbert for President!
By Spivonious on 10/17/2007 4:05:33 PM , Rating: 2
Don't we already have enough actors running?

I mean, yeah Steve's a funny guy, but what does he know about being President?


By Murst on 10/17/2007 4:42:01 PM , Rating: 5
Since when is knowing anything about the presidency a prerequisite?


RE: Give us real news ... Colbert for President!
By Flunk on 10/18/2007 12:16:01 AM , Rating: 2
Um, Steven Colbert is a liberal comedian. Haven't you ever paid attention to his show?


By Kuroyama on 10/18/2007 3:46:42 AM , Rating: 2
Um, of course I know that. But officially he's a liberal hater; it's just that everything anti-liberal that he says actually suggests the opposite of the words coming out of his mouth.


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki