Antivirus "hiding" it's true RAM usage

Oh Fajo, I'm sorry? I did'nt knew that your pc were running on LINUX, sorry that statement i made above only concerns to WINDOWS XP.You have a lot of ram on your system! is that's what making u make mindless statements. May be you should start a thread like "I LOVE NIS, I LOVE SYMANTEC HIDING THERE RESOURCE USAGE, OR SOMETHING LIKE I LOVE WASTING SYSTEM RESOURCES"



Please don't mess up the thread with your great statements. There are people who cares about these kinda issues, please leave us in peace

 

If your going to try to insult someone maybe you really should understand the subject you are talkin about other then just making it up as you go along. Again if you think NIS or ANY other product is hiding its usage prove it. Making a screenshot of physical ram in Windows Task manager holds about as much water as a holy cup. You really need to learn how Windows works and how it handles ram before you post on that subject anymore.

 

@Fajo

Good idea, and as a certain Microsoft employee has stated that sometimes they're not sure that makes this topic pointless.

 

Again the topic is NOT pointless. But if your going to say X program is hiding ram usage and makes Y program better Provide some evidence other then speculation which in the end is pointless.

 

I have not used speculation at all.
Proggy X and Y can use RAM in a totally different way - it may only be 'hidden' if one insists in looking in the same place all the time, irrespective of who did the coding and why.
Windows 'handles' RAM differently depending on what's available (up to a limit) for one thing.

 

I'm sorry, I was not talking strait to you David. I was meaning in general and it came off as directed to you.

 

FYI -- This argument assumes that “free" or "unused"/"wasted" RAM exists. It does not (at least on Windows Vista):

After you’ve used a Windows Vista system a while, you’ll see a low number for the Free Physical Memory counter on Task Manager’s Performance page. That’s because SuperFetch and standard Windows caching make use of all available physical memory to cache disk data. For example, when you first boot, if you immediately run Task Manager you should notice the Free Memory value decreasing as Cached Memory number rises.

Source: Inside the Windows Vista Kernel: Part 2​

 

I agree.

In general, the use of the word “hiding” seems to suggest deception-- i.e., that an anti-virus vendor is purposely seeking to misrepresent the amount of RAM used by the application. Personally, I find this position to be unjustified (and unjustifiable).

 

Fajo, can you please leave this thread alone, you clearly don't get the point.
We just want to KNOW and be enlightened, you're way off topic.
You clearly disagree with this thread so please leave it alone.


I used "" for a reason as I'm not stating that some is purposely hiding resource usage but to get an overview of what a product is using we need to take a broad perspective.

This is a speculative thread, no one is being accused of anything.

Those who see this whole thing as pointless and stupid please ignore this thread!

Thanks
Simon

 

Yea, I was just participating with what happened to me personally with ThreatFire. I posted their response about injecting a .dll into every running process which made sense to me although there numbers and mine do not even come close to comparing. Also, I've only seen in this thread, one seemingly x vs y app comparison so that's not even worth complaining about. Also, "TaskManager" is a generic term for me. I also know and use all the other TM alternatives for checking this kind of stuff but most of the time I just use the term "TaskManager" for this so let's lay off the TaskManager bashing. And another thing,lol, just because I have plenty of ram doesn't mean I want to allow an app to use most of it just because I have it to spare. Look at it like this, If I go to purchase a new vehicle and have enough cash in my pocket to pay sticker price for it doesn't mean I'll pay sticker price for it. I'm just not going to do it.

 

Let's not be revisionist - according to your initial posting...

So yes, you have explicitly accused Symantec/Norton of this behavior based on some recollected but uncited thread. Perhaps a citation is in order.

At various points in this thread, the topic has wandered from supposed "hidden" RAM utilization, CPU utilization, system responsiveness, I/O consumption, and so on...

So - precisely what is the technical point of this thread?

Blue

 

Hi Greg, your post was in the true nature of the thread and was very interesting.

Blue.. I totally fail to see the accusation. I use the words "seem", "recall correctly", all very speculative. Thanks for another off topic and unprofessional post, why did you take the time (oh please don't answer that here, PM me if you have another urge surge)?

Simon

 

I understand. My last reply was just a response towards a few different other replies. I was just trying to stuff it all into the one reply which I probably shouldn't have done.

 

Precisely where is the lack of professionalism and off-topic nature? I'm asking a specific question - what's the technical point of this thread? As already noted, it's sampled a rather diverse array of fronts, few of which reflect the chosen title.

You can try to hide behind speculative qualifiers, but you chose to initiate this thread with a single and specific vendor mentioned, and that focus was not qualified.

Blue

 

Blue..

This is an open speculative thread not a science paper and your critism is poor and off topic and thus unprofessional despite good phrasing. What you're posting here has nothing to do with the thread and should have been PMed!

Again I aghast that you bother to post at all. The only reason I am is because I started the thread.

It's absurd that a few individuals that don't feel something is of importance to them or "stupid" in the way the perceive things are allowed to hijack good thread like this with criticism on other posters insinuating this or that with nothing to contribute.

How off topic can one get

This thread is officially wasted on the dogs.

 

What's wrong with different viewpoints and speculation
Noone has to read this thread.

 

I don't even know what this means.

Yes, it does. As an Admin of the site I've asked and will repeat - what's the technical point of this thread? As already noted, it's sampled a rather diverse array of fronts, few of which reflect the chosen title. The purpose of the question is to provide focus for the discussion.

I tend not to criticize posters. I do occasionally question the merits of specific postings. Before you criticize others for insinuating, please revisit the post upon which you initiated this thread. That's a clear example of the use of "insinuation". You obviously don't believe that. However, from basic definitions of the words used it's difficult to draw any other conclusion.

As for other posters in this thread, it's useful to weigh their views - not because they're necessarily correct from your perspective, but they inform you of the perspective that readers have developed in taking in your message. That helps crystallize everyone's thinking.

Blue

PS - one off topic post removed.