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: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org 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 that explains how outdated I sometimes feel), and I remember getting 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: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > > 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/activedir@mail.activedir.org/ > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir@mail.activedir.org/ > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir@mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir@mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir@mail.activedir.org/
