I started a mail thread on this internally, and BOY was I wrong, apparently bbisw.lib is only like 3k, so couldn't possibly explain the bloat!
They pretty much know what bloated the binaries, and said they'll blog something about it in the next few days or so on the sysinternals blog ... though someone's guess below was pretty close according to initial analysis ... But you don't have to wait for it, feel free to propogate your favorite conspiracy theories in the meantime ... Cheers, BrettSh This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Brian Desmond wrote: > I think MS may have signed them all. Dunno if that increases size. > > Thanks, > Brian Desmond > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > c - 312.731.3132 > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Steve Egan (Temp) wrote: > Back in my days of programming in C, if we used the C-Worthy Interface > Library (CWIL), a simple three-line program would be a MINIMUM of 170K. > Maybe it's because a GUI is now included, or somesuch?? > > Steve Egan > Purcell Systems > System/Network Administrator > desk 509 755-0341 x110 > cell 509 475-7682 > fax 509 755-0345 On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Brett Shirley wrote: > We had to compile in bbisw.lib (Big Brother Is Watching). You might think > that's against your rights, but you signged them away when you accepted > the 5k larger eula.txt below (which you didn't read). > > Cheers, > BrettSh [EMAIL PROTECTED] <-- I've decided its funny when I use it. > > Just b/c I know this kind of thing can go rabbidly out of control, _YES, I > WAS KIDDING._ On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Free, Bob wrote: > I would think in part it has to be the new GUI EULA that pops up and > the code they use to update the registry of acceptance of said EULA. > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, joe wrote: > Could be various things of which most would probably be a little difficult > to ascertain. > > Compiler versions can certainly cause deltas, as well as individual switches > in a compiler. For instance, if I use Borland Builder 6.0 to compile > something and then use Borland Developer Studio (Basiclaly Borland Builder > 7.0) I will see a reduction usually of about 10-40% in binary size. However, > if I select certain switches (primarily things like inline function > expansion while using STL code), the BDS compile can grow from 50-300% and > probably more, 300% is about the most I have seen. It is likely that MSFT > would compile the tools with something different than Mark would have and > use. From the times I have looked at Mark's source, I am pretty sure he just > used the standard Visual Studio product that was current for the time. I > won't speak for MSFT on what they definitively use, but they are not sitting > there using VS to build release code. > > Other possibilities are additional PE options like manifests, code signing, > x64 compiles, as mentioned above a variety of compiler/linker options (set > through switches or different interpretations of pragmas), using different > libraries for standard functions (i.e. not everyone implements cout or > printf identically), and of course there are things like changes to the code > to reflect internal MSFT programming guidelines like changing how strings > are handled, etc. > > There obviously tin foil hat things that it could be as well but there are > so many non-devious things it could be it would be quite a while before I > started thinking something devious was occurring. > > I wouldn't be surprised if no one there even knows the bloat occurred or > why. I am sure someone there could figure it out if they wanted to though. > > joe > > -- > O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - > http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Javier Jarava > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:47 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ActiveDir] OT: "new" ms-Sysinternals utils: .exe size gone up like > crazy! > > Hi! > > Just a quick question to the list, to see what the honrable members (tm) > think. > > I have just d/l some of the the updated sysinternals tools from MS (filemon, > regmon, autoruns and pstools to be precise), and I have noticed that most if > not all the utils have grown in size A LOT. > > As an example, this is the change I see from pstools v2.34 and v2.4: > > Archive: SYSINTERNALS PsTools v2.34 -20060710- PsTools.zip > Length Date Time Name > -------- ---- ---- ---- > 122880 20/03/06 16:19 psshutdown.exe > 94208 02/08/05 11:14 pskill.exe > 65536 30/03/06 10:05 psloglist.exe > 49152 27/03/06 13:07 psloggedon.exe > 106496 21/07/05 10:22 psgetsid.exe > 146704 26/07/00 12:00 pdh.dll > 57344 06/04/06 14:52 psservice.exe > 53248 30/12/05 03:15 psfile.exe > 135168 11/07/06 09:00 psexec.exe > 63786 08/07/06 11:10 Pstools.chm > 135168 13/12/05 09:51 Psinfo.exe > 106496 07/11/03 14:42 pssuspend.exe > 86016 01/12/04 17:27 pslist.exe > 57344 16/05/04 08:36 pspasswd.exe > 1969 11/02/06 09:22 Eula.txt > 39 10/07/06 13:58 version.txt > -------- ------- > 1281554 16 files > > Archive: SYSINTERNALS PsTools v2.4 -20061101- PsTools.zip > Length Date Time Name > -------- ---- ---- ---- > 412472 01/11/06 13:07 psexec.exe > 166712 01/11/06 13:06 psfile.exe > 322360 01/11/06 13:07 psgetsid.exe > 428856 01/11/06 13:07 Psinfo.exe > 318264 01/11/06 13:07 pskill.exe > 191288 01/11/06 13:06 pslist.exe > 162616 01/11/06 13:06 psloggedon.exe > 187192 01/11/06 13:06 psloglist.exe > 170808 01/11/06 13:06 pspasswd.exe > 179000 01/11/06 13:06 psservice.exe > 404280 01/11/06 13:07 psshutdown.exe > 375608 01/11/06 13:07 pssuspend.exe > 63786 08/07/06 11:10 Pstools.chm > 38 15/10/06 16:32 psversion.txt > 153672 01/11/06 13:05 pdh.dll > 7005 28/07/06 08:32 Eula.txt > -------- ------- > 3543957 16 files > > Just wondering outloud what is the reason for the size change. Different > compiler, maybe? > > > Thanks a lot for your time in reading thus far. > > Javier Jarava > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
