>pasted all the guesses into one mail thread >(because people on this alias are so terrible at finding the tip of the thread)
Like BrettSh said, someone guessed pretty close...now who would that be? LOL Too bad this isn't the thread he quoted... -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Parris Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:17 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: "new" ms-Sysinternals utils: .exe size gone up like crazy! And the answer is: From: Mark Russinovich Sent: 14 November 2006 19:15 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Can you comment on this please? The growth is primarily due to the EULA. We've come up with a way to shrink it and so the sizes will decrease as we update the tools. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 6:07 AM To: Mark Russinovich Subject:Can you comment on this please? Importance: High Mark, this email is floating around the activedir email list and was wondering if you could answer it. Mark Mark Parris Base IT Ltd Active Directory Consultancy +44 (0)7801 690596 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley Sent: 14 November 2006 17:09 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] OT: "new" ms-Sysinternals utils: .exe size gone up like crazy! I did not say that compiler options produced the increase in size. I said someone guessed pretty close, and pasted all the guesses into one mail thread (because people on this alias are so terrible at finding the tip of the thread). Cheers, -BrettSh On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Javier Jarava wrote: > Hey! I wonder why everybody assumes that I am implying there is > something sneaky going on?? :)) I mean, it's not like any of you had > seen my new tinfoil hat, and I believe I haven't ranted about my > conspiracy theories on-list not even once!! > > (I was about to say that I am SURE I've never referred to MS using the > "M <money>" shortcut, but I think that might be getting a little too > close to irony, and probably joke might be misread, so I decided to be > on the safe side and try to be serious and avoid it.... And then > decided that the day is boring enough so what the h..!) > > (Note: yes, the above paragraphs are not to be taken seriously and can > be skipped over without losing any content). > > Conspiracy theories aside, the reason of my OP was that I tend to > enjoy lean utils and when a program just about doubles its size for no > apparent reason, I like to ask why. > > There was a time loong ago when I thought I knew something about > programming (that was around the time of VS5 and BCB1/3, so I guess > that explains how outdated I sometimes feel), and I remember getting > big changes in exe sizes just by playing around with compiler options. > Thats what I believed the reason for the change was, and I guess the > thread more or less confirms is (specially BrettSH's posts). > > But I was (and still am) curious as to the how/what/why of the change. > I mean, I (obviously) don't have the code for the sysinternals utils > (and probably wouldn't be able to make much sense of it if I had), but > I tend to "remember" that the little code I've seen from Sysinternals > (something to do with file defrag. IIRC) was clean and neat-looking, > w/o "dangerous shortcuts" and similar hocus-pocus that might be > "cleaned off" and thus get a bigger exe. > > And if the reason is "sysinternals used an standard MS compiler" vs > "in-house use of better tools"... well, I know that exe size is not > everything.. but... being honest, if you had an established and > working product, and one of your programmers "used better tools" to > get a result that is 2x, wouldn't you wonder if it was worth it? > > So I guess it boils down to a matter of curiosity, and I also feel > that there is a lesson there worth knowing. After all, I truly believe > the Sysinternals utils are true "gems" and I hope they are maintained > and grown to be even better. > > <soapbox off> :) > > On 13/11/06, joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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]/ > 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]/
