Thanks, one of my pet peeves about MS has been confirmed.
" One of the main reasons a program crashes is because it can’t obtain
enough memory from the OS to complete an operation. . . This is a
particularly thorny issue because data and programs share the same
memory space,"
Garbage. This is a design decision. I remember when the 386 came out
that many were happy that all of a program could then go into one
segment. Code and data would live happily together in one segment.
"so if a program writes beyond its allocated memory it could well
write over program code leading to a crash."
I find it far easier to monitor segment faults than buffer sizes.
"A resilient OS that features memory protection, such as Windows XP,
will prevent the program doing this, while an older OS will fall
over."
Yup.Modification of 'The Gillette Principle. Sell the public an item
that has a displosable component that continually needs replacing.
In this case it seems to be sell a product that contains fixes for
previous defects but has enough of its own to provide an inducement to
buy future fixes.
In this case it seems to be sell a product that contains fixes for
previous defects but has enough of its own to provide an inducement to
buy future fixes.
Or the one that said, "The only time Microsoft won't suck is when they
start selling vacuum cleaners."
Seriously, I'm putting together a new system in the next month or two
and it'll be Linux only. (Suse 9.2). Just getting the cash and
deciding on the components.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.