This is getting funnier and funnier. You are both right. Some programs do
not deallocate memory when they are exited. Windows usually figures this out
after a while and frees up the memory itself so it isn't normally a problem.
If the program is started and exited many times before Windows figures
things out it may cause a problem. Much more common is a programing bug
where a program allocates memory and then while still running allocates more
memory for the same thing over and over. Both result from sloppy programming
and shouldn't happen. Most modern programming environments with built in
debugging tools watch for these common errors.

OE isn't known for any of these flaws.

Kerry

Doug Kanter wrote:
> "David Candy" <.> wrote in message
> news:uTB3MCVEGHA.2300@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Do you want to back up your lies. You're the one talking shit. Lets
> look at this earlier thread,
>
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/mi...332 5fa3b8fe4
>
> I answered correctly first.
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
> Isn't that nice? You answered first. But, that thread has nothing
> whatsoever to do with the concept we're discussing here: memory issues
>
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
>
> So I get tired of dickheads like you and him.
>
> Put up or shutup.
>
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
> Here are some links that will help you. I am not going to explain
> this to you. You're going to have to read for yourself. There's a
> whole world of information about this issue. You think it doesn't
> exist because you don't understand it. How illogical. I doubt you're
> a professional programmer.
>
> http://forums.csharpcorner.com/F_Sho...21250&PostID=1
>
>
> This next link includes:
> "a method to test for "dirty" apps which fail to release all their
> allocated memory when they are closed. "
> http://shell-shocked.org/article.php?id=195
>
>
> Here's a programmer trying to deal with exactly the subject I've
> taught you about:
> http://www.codeguru.com/forum/archiv.../t-290294.html
>
>
> Another real programmer trying to learn how to solve the problem
> http://www.crystaltech.com/forum/top...TOPIC_ID=13399
>
> Here's a nasty one:
> " There is a tool called ObjectAlloc in Xcode that shows objects being
> created and released while the program is running. I ran it, and
> found that no objects were ever being released in this app - now
> thats a memory leak - object were just created and never destroyed.
> So I started reading up more on retain / release / autorelease to see
> what he had going, and I think I understand it a bit more then I did
> before. "
> http://www.robrohan.com/client/index...CBE919406F6800
>
>
> Want more??? Sift through the search results:
> http://www.google.com/search?q=progr...&start=20&sa=N

http://shell-shocked.org/article.php?id=195

Take this one. There is no evidence on the page at all.

http://www.codeguru.com/forum/archiv.../t-290294.html
This one isn't about what you are talking about. The application is still running.

http://www.robrohan.com/client/index...CBE919406F6800

Again nothing to do with what you are talking about. The app is running. Not that the page downloaded (I don't waste time on faulty designed pages), I went of your summary. This one also is faulty http://forums.csharpcorner.com/F_Sho...21250&PostID=1

So you need to post the contents of these pages.

But all you've shown is a complete lack of knowledge about the subject. You have chosen things that don't demostrate what you assert. None of these demostrate memory not being freed when an application terminates. I've been treating fools like you like this since 1996. Same old, same old.

If you want to read idiots (and none but the first link is an idiot - they are talking about their own bugs - that windows will fix when the app terminates).

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodbye Web Diary
http://margokingston.typepad.com/har....html#comments
=================================================
"Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:QkTuf.2738$OU3.1930@news01.roc.ny...
> "David Candy" <.> wrote in message
> news:uTB3MCVEGHA.2300@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Do you want to back up your lies. You're the one talking shit. Lets look at
> this earlier thread,
>
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/mi...332 5fa3b8fe4
>
> I answered correctly first.
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
> Isn't that nice? You answered first. But, that thread has nothing whatsoever
> to do with the concept we're discussing here: memory issues
>
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
>
> So I get tired of dickheads like you and him.
>
> Put up or shutup.
>
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
> Here are some links that will help you. I am not going to explain this to
> you. You're going to have to read for yourself. There's a whole world of
> information about this issue. You think it doesn't exist because you don't
> understand it. How illogical. I doubt you're a professional programmer.
>
>
> http://forums.csharpcorner.com/F_Sho...21250&PostID=1
>
>
> This next link includes:
> "a method to test for "dirty" apps which fail to release all their allocated
> memory when they are closed. "
> http://shell-shocked.org/article.php?id=195
>
>
> Here's a programmer trying to deal with exactly the subject I've taught you
> about:
> http://www.codeguru.com/forum/archiv.../t-290294.html
>
>
> Another real programmer trying to learn how to solve the problem
> http://www.crystaltech.com/forum/top...TOPIC_ID=13399
>
> Here's a nasty one:
> " There is a tool called ObjectAlloc in Xcode that shows objects being
> created and released while the program is running. I ran it, and found that
> no objects were ever being released in this app - now thats a memory leak -
> object were just created and never destroyed. So I started reading up more
> on retain / release / autorelease to see what he had going, and I think I
> understand it a bit more then I did before. "
> http://www.robrohan.com/client/index...CBE919406F6800
>
>
> Want more??? Sift through the search results:
> http://www.google.com/search?q=progr...&start=20&sa=N
>
>

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:%23u9j$RVEGHA.2728@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> This is getting funnier and funnier. You are both right.

Actually, he's saying the problem doesn't exist at all. Now THAT is funny.


> Some programs do not deallocate memory when they are exited. Windows
> usually figures this out after a while and frees up the memory itself so
> it isn't normally a problem. If the program is started and exited many
> times before Windows figures things out it may cause a problem. Much more
> common is a programing bug where a program allocates memory and then while
> still running allocates more memory for the same thing over and over. Both
> result from sloppy programming and shouldn't happen. Most modern
> programming environments with built in debugging tools watch for these
> common errors.

You're right. It shouldn't happen. But, it does, even in otherwise nice
software that costs real money.


> OE isn't known for any of these flaws.

Actually, it will occasionally leave a piece of itself running, but I've
only seen it happen twice in a year. The onscreen message was bizarre, and
nobody here could decipher it. Nothing in Google, either.

"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
news:%23j3%239SVEGHA.2708@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
http://shell-shocked.org/article.php?id=195

Take this one. There is no evidence on the page at all.

http://www.codeguru.com/forum/archiv.../t-290294.html
This one isn't about what you are talking about. The application is still
running.

http://www.robrohan.com/client/index...CBE919406F6800

Again nothing to do with what you are talking about. The app is running. Not
that the page downloaded (I don't waste time on faulty designed pages), I
went of your summary. This one also is faulty
http://forums.csharpcorner.com/F_Sho...21250&PostID=1

So you need to post the contents of these pages.

But all you've shown is a complete lack of knowledge about the subject. You
have chosen things that don't demostrate what you assert. None of these
demostrate memory not being freed when an application terminates. I've been
treating fools like you like this since 1996. Same old, same old.

If you want to read idiots (and none but the first link is an idiot - they
are talking about their own bugs - that windows will fix when the app
terminates).

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;

Have a nice day.

It doesn't. You haven't shown one example of it. I was actually expecting some examples where there is an appearance of it happening, but you couldn't even manage that. One thing I expected was rants by an idiot like you about delayed load components (such as Win 16 programs).

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodbye Web Diary
http://margokingston.typepad.com/har....html#comments
=================================================
"Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:BHTuf.1139$qg.325@news02.roc.ny...
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> news:%23u9j$RVEGHA.2728@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> This is getting funnier and funnier. You are both right.
>
> Actually, he's saying the problem doesn't exist at all. Now THAT is funny.
>
>
>> Some programs do not deallocate memory when they are exited. Windows
>> usually figures this out after a while and frees up the memory itself so
>> it isn't normally a problem. If the program is started and exited many
>> times before Windows figures things out it may cause a problem. Much more
>> common is a programing bug where a program allocates memory and then while
>> still running allocates more memory for the same thing over and over. Both
>> result from sloppy programming and shouldn't happen. Most modern
>> programming environments with built in debugging tools watch for these
>> common errors.
>
> You're right. It shouldn't happen. But, it does, even in otherwise nice
> software that costs real money.
>
>
>> OE isn't known for any of these flaws.
>
> Actually, it will occasionally leave a piece of itself running, but I've
> only seen it happen twice in a year. The onscreen message was bizarre, and
> nobody here could decipher it. Nothing in Google, either.
>
>

"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
news:uTP9ziVEGHA.644@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
It doesn't. You haven't shown one example of it. I was actually expecting
some examples where there is an appearance of it happening, but you couldn't
even manage that. One thing I expected was rants by an idiot like you about
delayed load components (such as Win 16 programs).
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;


Sadly, I have an actual job, so I don't have time to do research for you. My
satisfying job also explains why I'm not disgusted with my life, so I don't
need to call people by names I don't understand, like "pedophile".

You're a programmer. You know where to find the information you need. You're
a professional. You said so.

Have a nice day.

Perhaps Kerry is referring to a faulty driver. The driver needs to finish what it started and the process can't give up all it's memory till the driver finishes. But you'll see it in task manager.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodbye Web Diary
http://margokingston.typepad.com/har....html#comments
=================================================
"Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:BHTuf.1139$qg.325@news02.roc.ny...
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> news:%23u9j$RVEGHA.2728@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> This is getting funnier and funnier. You are both right.
>
> Actually, he's saying the problem doesn't exist at all. Now THAT is funny.
>
>
>> Some programs do not deallocate memory when they are exited. Windows
>> usually figures this out after a while and frees up the memory itself so
>> it isn't normally a problem. If the program is started and exited many
>> times before Windows figures things out it may cause a problem. Much more
>> common is a programing bug where a program allocates memory and then while
>> still running allocates more memory for the same thing over and over. Both
>> result from sloppy programming and shouldn't happen. Most modern
>> programming environments with built in debugging tools watch for these
>> common errors.
>
> You're right. It shouldn't happen. But, it does, even in otherwise nice
> software that costs real money.
>
>
>> OE isn't known for any of these flaws.
>
> Actually, it will occasionally leave a piece of itself running, but I've
> only seen it happen twice in a year. The onscreen message was bizarre, and
> nobody here could decipher it. Nothing in Google, either.
>
>

Just stop spreading lies and I won't correct you.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodbye Web Diary
http://margokingston.typepad.com/har....html#comments
=================================================
"Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message newsoUuf.2750$OU3.72@news01.roc.ny...
>
> "David Candy" <.> wrote in message
> news:uTP9ziVEGHA.644@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> It doesn't. You haven't shown one example of it. I was actually expecting
> some examples where there is an appearance of it happening, but you couldn't
> even manage that. One thing I expected was rants by an idiot like you about
> delayed load components (such as Win 16 programs).
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
>
> Sadly, I have an actual job, so I don't have time to do research for you. My
> satisfying job also explains why I'm not disgusted with my life, so I don't
> need to call people by names I don't understand, like "pedophile".
>
> You're a programmer. You know where to find the information you need. You're
> a professional. You said so.
>
> Have a nice day.
>
>

David Candy you have proved yourself to be a real prick. Congratulations.

Will never read your resonses again.


"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
news:%23j3%239SVEGHA.2708@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
http://shell-shocked.org/article.php?id=195

Take this one. There is no evidence on the page at all.

http://www.codeguru.com/forum/archiv.../t-290294.html
This one isn't about what you are talking about. The application is still
running.

http://www.robrohan.com/client/index...CBE919406F6800

Again nothing to do with what you are talking about. The app is running. Not
that the page downloaded (I don't waste time on faulty designed pages), I
went of your summary. This one also is faulty
http://forums.csharpcorner.com/F_Sho...21250&PostID=1

So you need to post the contents of these pages.

But all you've shown is a complete lack of knowledge about the subject. You
have chosen things that don't demostrate what you assert. None of these
demostrate memory not being freed when an application terminates. I've been
treating fools like you like this since 1996. Same old, same old.

If you want to read idiots (and none but the first link is an idiot - they
are talking about their own bugs - that windows will fix when the app
terminates).

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodbye Web Diary
http://margokingston.typepad.com/har....html#comments
=================================================
"Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QkTuf.2738$OU3.1930@news01.roc.ny...
> "David Candy" <.> wrote in message
> news:uTB3MCVEGHA.2300@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Do you want to back up your lies. You're the one talking shit. Lets look
> at
> this earlier thread,
>
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/mi...332 5fa3b8fe4
>
> I answered correctly first.
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
> Isn't that nice? You answered first. But, that thread has nothing
> whatsoever
> to do with the concept we're discussing here: memory issues
>
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
>
> So I get tired of dickheads like you and him.
>
> Put up or shutup.
>
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
> Here are some links that will help you. I am not going to explain this to
> you. You're going to have to read for yourself. There's a whole world of
> information about this issue. You think it doesn't exist because you don't
> understand it. How illogical. I doubt you're a professional programmer.
>
>
> http://forums.csharpcorner.com/F_Sho...21250&PostID=1
>
>
> This next link includes:
> "a method to test for "dirty" apps which fail to release all their
> allocated
> memory when they are closed. "
> http://shell-shocked.org/article.php?id=195
>
>
> Here's a programmer trying to deal with exactly the subject I've taught
> you
> about:
> http://www.codeguru.com/forum/archiv.../t-290294.html
>
>
> Another real programmer trying to learn how to solve the problem
> http://www.crystaltech.com/forum/top...TOPIC_ID=13399
>
> Here's a nasty one:
> " There is a tool called ObjectAlloc in Xcode that shows objects being
> created and released while the program is running. I ran it, and found
> that
> no objects were ever being released in this app - now thats a memory
> leak -
> object were just created and never destroyed. So I started reading up more
> on retain / release / autorelease to see what he had going, and I think I
> understand it a bit more then I did before. "
> http://www.robrohan.com/client/index...CBE919406F6800
>
>
> Want more??? Sift through the search results:
> http://www.google.com/search?q=progr...&start=20&sa=N
>
>

Like I care. Fools are fools. Perhaps you prefer liars.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodbye Web Diary
http://margokingston.typepad.com/har....html#comments
=================================================
"bill" <bill@ibulls.com> wrote in message news:dph5qq$pt3$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> David Candy you have proved yourself to be a real prick. Congratulations.
>
> Will never read your resonses again.
>
>
> "David Candy" <.> wrote in message
> news:%23j3%239SVEGHA.2708@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> http://shell-shocked.org/article.php?id=195
>
> Take this one. There is no evidence on the page at all.
>
> http://www.codeguru.com/forum/archiv.../t-290294.html
> This one isn't about what you are talking about. The application is still
> running.
>
> http://www.robrohan.com/client/index...CBE919406F6800
>
> Again nothing to do with what you are talking about. The app is running. Not
> that the page downloaded (I don't waste time on faulty designed pages), I
> went of your summary. This one also is faulty
> http://forums.csharpcorner.com/F_Sho...21250&PostID=1
>
> So you need to post the contents of these pages.
>
> But all you've shown is a complete lack of knowledge about the subject. You
> have chosen things that don't demostrate what you assert. None of these
> demostrate memory not being freed when an application terminates. I've been
> treating fools like you like this since 1996. Same old, same old.
>
> If you want to read idiots (and none but the first link is an idiot - they
> are talking about their own bugs - that windows will fix when the app
> terminates).
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Goodbye Web Diary
> http://margokingston.typepad.com/har....html#comments
> =================================================
> "Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:QkTuf.2738$OU3.1930@news01.roc.ny...
>> "David Candy" <.> wrote in message
>> news:uTB3MCVEGHA.2300@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Do you want to back up your lies. You're the one talking shit. Lets look
>> at
>> this earlier thread,
>>
>> http://groups.google.com.au/group/mi...332 5fa3b8fe4
>>
>> I answered correctly first.
>> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>>
>> Isn't that nice? You answered first. But, that thread has nothing
>> whatsoever
>> to do with the concept we're discussing here: memory issues
>>
>> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>>
>>
>> So I get tired of dickheads like you and him.
>>
>> Put up or shutup.
>>
>> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>>
>> Here are some links that will help you. I am not going to explain this to
>> you. You're going to have to read for yourself. There's a whole world of
>> information about this issue. You think it doesn't exist because you don't
>> understand it. How illogical. I doubt you're a professional programmer.
>>
>>
>> http://forums.csharpcorner.com/F_Sho...21250&PostID=1
>>
>>
>> This next link includes:
>> "a method to test for "dirty" apps which fail to release all their
>> allocated
>> memory when they are closed. "
>> http://shell-shocked.org/article.php?id=195
>>
>>
>> Here's a programmer trying to deal with exactly the subject I've taught
>> you
>> about:
>> http://www.codeguru.com/forum/archiv.../t-290294.html
>>
>>
>> Another real programmer trying to learn how to solve the problem
>> http://www.crystaltech.com/forum/top...TOPIC_ID=13399
>>
>> Here's a nasty one:
>> " There is a tool called ObjectAlloc in Xcode that shows objects being
>> created and released while the program is running. I ran it, and found
>> that
>> no objects were ever being released in this app - now thats a memory
>> leak -
>> object were just created and never destroyed. So I started reading up more
>> on retain / release / autorelease to see what he had going, and I think I
>> understand it a bit more then I did before. "
>> http://www.robrohan.com/client/index...CBE919406F6800
>>
>>
>> Want more??? Sift through the search results:
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=progr...&start=20&sa=N
>>
>>
>
>