 |
|
|
Programm3r wrote: Check the memory drop in the Task Manager
ok, i tried it with Outlook, Firefox and TimeMatters : no change at all when minimized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is probably because outlook mimimizes to the tray. If you trap the minimize and replace this with a hide window the os trimming of pages does not happen.
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John M. Drescher wrote: That is probably because outlook mimimizes to the tray.
the other two applications i tried do not minimize to the tray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One thing it measures is the # of pages of a process that are physically mapped to RAM. This will double count most space used by dlls as the operating system will share these between processes.
The working set answer is the correct answer for the initial question. Basically the operating system trims the working set (pages in RAM) when most apps are minimized. It's been years since I needed to do this but I know the programmer has some control over how the OS does that. You can also completely avoid this by trapping the minimize message and replacing it with a hide window and a tray icon.
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't use the memory tab in Task Manager as a way to measure how much memory an app is using. That isn't accurate; the "memory" page is how much memory Windows has allocated to the process. When minimized, Windows can reduce how much memory is allocated to the process, allowing it to be used by other processes.
If you're looking for a more accurate memory count, use the "Virtual Memory" tab. It won't be affected by minimizing. Better yet, use a real memory profiler or Process Explorer and investigate the pages, allocations, and working set size. These will give you a better idea of how much memory a process is really using.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are looking at the wrong number, look at private bytes instead, that wont do @#$@ if u minimize :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VM size in task manager 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOOO, not that one! I use ProcessExplorer so much I forgot, but yes, that one is quite indicative :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because it takes less space on the screen? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Task Manager's 'Mem Usage' column (in Windows Server 2003 and earlier) shows process working set size. The working set is the set of pages belonging to that application which are currently in physical memory. Windows trims (discards pages of) the working set of a process when a window belonging to the process is minimized.
When the pages are discarded from the working set, they are not immediately cleared. Instead, they are placed on the end of either the standby list (if not modified) or the modified list (if they are modified since last read). The processor helps out by setting a bit in the corresponding page table entry when it writes to a page. The OS lazy-writes pages on the modified list; once written back (to the original file for a memory-mapped file or to the page file for other pages) the page is put on the standby list. Windows has another list, the zero-page list, which contains only pages where every byte is zero. When a CPU is idle, it runs the zero-page thread, which takes pages from the top of the standby list and writing zeros to them, then puts them on the zero page list. This happens until a threshold of zero pages has been reached - it won't consume the entire standby list.
When an application or the OS needs a new page, the OS will grab a page near the top of the zero-page or standby list. If it's giving the page to an application, it will always be a zero page, unless the page is going to be filled with data from a file (for example, a memory-mapped file, or being paged back in from a page file). Executables and DLLs are memory-mapped files. Kernel-mode requests get standby pages. If the appropriate list is empty it will first grab a page from the other list (zeroing it if taking from the standby list). If both are empty it will start stealing pages from other working sets.
The issue of interpreting what Windows is doing with memory is tricky because of these lists and how Task Manager displays them. The standby and modified lists are counted under 'Available', but because they contain recently-used application data, they are also considered a cache and are counted under 'System Cache'. On my systems, Available + System Cache often exceeds the actual amount of physical memory in the system!
Because the working set size is effectively out of the application's control - being trimmed by the OS or growing as the application references pages - it's not really a good measure of anything much. The same application with the same workload will use a greater or lesser amount of physical memory depending on how much physical memory is fitted in total, and what other activity is happening on the system. A slightly better measure is the 'VM Size' column, which is actually the same as the Process:Private Bytes counter in the Performance console's System Monitor. This measures how many bytes (really, how many pages) have been committed by use of the VirtualAlloc API. Other allocation APIs (HeapAlloc, malloc, new, garbage-collected heap in the .NET Framework) manage blocks of virtual address space on behalf of the application, to allow more flexible allocation sizes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Following on from this[^] thread yesterday, I though some of you would like to know that BuzzyCode.com is the same owner as dotnetspider.com - anyone want to take a guess whether dotnetspider also contains ripped articles?
In addition, if anyone would like to speak to their representitive in India they are available on MSN using the email address software@logicindia.net
I spoke with them this morning, and they assure me that they did not post the articles - they were submitted by members. I of course reminded them that as site owners it is their responsibility to weed out plagarized articles from their user submissions.
/Edit; After a more careful look it seems the 2 sites have different owners however they both use the outsourcing of "logicindia". I would assume by the similarity of the sites that logic india actually build and maintain these sites.
-- modified at 8:00 Thursday 30th August, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BuzzyCode's whois shows :-
Domain Name.......... buzzycode.com
Creation Date........ 2005-09-27
Registration Date.... 2005-09-27
Expiry Date.......... 2007-09-27
Organisation Name.... Logic Logic Software Labs
Organisation Address. Logic towers, St.Alberts College Lane, Banerji Road
Organisation Address.
Organisation Address. Cochin
Organisation Address. 682018
Organisation Address. KE
Organisation Address. INDIA
Admin Name........... Paul V Joseph
Admin Address........ Logic towers, St.Alberts College Lane, Banerji Road
Admin Address........
Admin Address........ Cochin
Admin Address........ 682018
Admin Address........ KE
Admin Address........ INDIA
Admin Email.......... paulj@logicslab.com
Admin Phone.......... +91.4842393141
Admin Fax............
Tech Name............ Paul V Joseph
Tech Address......... Logic towers, St.Alberts College Lane, Banerji Road
Tech Address.........
Tech Address......... Cochin
Tech Address......... 682018
Tech Address......... KE
Tech Address......... INDIA
Tech Email........... paulj@logicslab.com
Tech Phone........... +91.4842393141
Tech Fax.............
Name Server.......... ns1.qtechost.com
Name Server.......... ns2.qtechost.com
DotNetSpider shows :-
Registrant:
Tony John
[mod] ** Removing Tony John's info on request ** [/mod]
So - basically two different people. Though from the guy's name (Tony John) he may be from Kerala too. Christians in my state have surnames that are usually first names in the west. (and people often joke about them having two first names, specially if they study abroad)
-- modified at 12:10 Friday 7th September, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nish,
Can you please remove my personal details and contact information from the above post for the same reasons we discussed in few other threads:
http://www.codeproject.com/lounge.asp?select=2209099&df=100&tid=2207100&forumid=1159&msg=2209099
http://www.codeproject.com/lounge.asp?msg=2212888#xx2212888xx
- Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tony M John wrote: Can you please remove my personal details and contact information from the above post for the same reasons we discussed in few other threads:
Tony,
I have removed your info.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J4amieC wrote: I spoke with them this morning, and they assure me that they did not post the articles - they were submitted by members.
What a blasted lie! All their member profiles are fake 
One of them has a darkened pic of Princess Diana. Another is a morph of a south Indian actress. And many other profile pics seem to be random selections from a google image search. Also the names are all so obviously fake. The site owner is a blatant fraud in my opinion!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so what can be done against such thieves ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
toxcct wrote: so what can be done against such thieves ?
We can take legal action against them. And we can also publicly post about such companies, so people know them for the frauds that they really are.
These guys claim to be an offshore outsourcing company. Can you think of a single reason why anyone would want to send work to a group of remorseless lying thieves such as these?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i mean, concretely, what can be done ?
what "legal actions" can be taken ?
how to ensure of their profile (what if they were also lying on who is managing these web sites) ?
and how to ensure that they will be punished for their fault ?
i'm probably not knowing enough about internet privacy, thus my questions...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
toxcct wrote: i mean, concretely, what can be done ?
what "legal actions" can be taken ?
In India, next to nothing if you want to take the legal route. The verdicts in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts case were handed down a month back. Somebody copying articles off a webpage pales in comparison to that.
To reiterate, if you want to take the legal route, next to nothing. There are, of course, other means... 
Cheers,
Vıkram.
Be yourself, no matter what they say.
- Sting, Englishman in New York.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote: There are, of course, other means...
Vikram,
But we have to use the other course very carefully. Very often these guys have money power and muscle power so that they can 'purchase' anyone and whatever to wreck havoc on us. I think, the best one being 'Turn a blind eye' and keep silent. Let Time answer the query. We are in India which is filled with rampant bureucratic red tape corrupt politicians and I don't think we can be able to fight with others.
I have shared my personal experience in a politics-driven small software company life sometime about three years back over here:
http://deepakvasudevan.blogspot.com/2004/03/life-at-c-s-software-11-august-2001-to.html[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the content of an email I received today from *******@mypacks.net, probably based on the threads in CP and assuming I own the site BuzzyXXXX:
Hello, you plagiarizing monkey. You disgust me, and probably all
decent developers in the US. You Indian punks can't do it yourself, so you
and your partners steal others' ideas, call them your own, make money
off of the sweat of others.
You pig.
I just wanted to point out how much damage couple of mis leading threads in CP caused us. While BuzzyXXXX is definitely a website containing copied articles, we have no association with that site. Today I informed Logic Labs that I will discontinue my outsourcing partnership (which contributes a signficant revenue of Logic Labs) with them unless they shutdown Buzzyxxxx. According to them, Logic Labs was outsourced by someone to develop and maintain the site and they cannot shut it down. But they have agreed to remove ALL ARTICLES soon and rebuild the site.
- Tony John
dotnetspider.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since it is an Indian website, I think, I am trying to see if we can approach the Intellectual Property Infringments in India or CyberCrime cell for a redressal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently some guy from Malawi wrote identical code to mine, I sure hopes he takes over the support :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I notice too that the site hosts a lot of Google Ads. Since the site is then generating revenue for both the site owner and Google, shouldn't Google also bear some responsibility for ensuring that IP rights are being protected? I would think that once Google Ads were removed, the owner would no longer have a reason for doing the copying in the first place. It seems to me that while Google are not explicitly involved with the copy operation, they are implicitly involved and should at least be made aware of that.
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Rant 
Admin