locked
How to fake amount of ram installed

    Question

  • Does anyone know of a way to script falsifying the amount of RAM installed on a PC for an install. I have a program that needs to be installed on many systems that all have little RAM. The program requires during the setup that at least 384 MB of RAM be installed. Some of these systems only have 256 so the install fails. I know the easy answer is install more RAM. Ain't going to happen. Company has no budget. The install should be fine I think, but would like to test more. in order to do the testing to see if this would even work though I need to figure out how to have the OS tell the app it has more RAM than it does. I don't know this app but my first guess is the app queries WMI for amount of RAM?? If that's the case is there a way to set that WMI entry to something different until after the app is done? Or if someone knows another way that would be good too?

     

    Thanks, Terry

    Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:23 AM

Answers

  • I agree with you it can be tough when you ask a question and seem to get every answer but the one you want. However that sometimes will tell you that the answer that you want does not exist.

    When you get this many people telling you something can't be done, including MS employees, then its good to consider maybe there is not a way to fake the amount of ram a computer has at least not at a high level of something like a .NET language running on a virtual machine (.net framework) on top of Windows.

    You did ask 2 questions though, one about faking the amount of ram, and then a second about if not what other solutions can you use? I feel like you got both these answers, certainly more on the first one, the answer just happened to be no.

    As far as your second question about what can you do about it, at least a few people did mention some theoritical workarounds, like possibly increasing the ram just for the install, and then yanking the ram and bringing it to the next machine. Certainly not the desirable scenario, but it is valid enough. Of course we don't know this company setup, number of computers, etc... so I am sure it could be a pain to try that method. Or the other method proposed was try to look into what kind of installer they use, and if there is a way you can unpack, repack the installation files to bypass the requirement test.

    Usually software installers don't block you from installing based on the amt of ram, even if you don't meet the base requirements, so the fact that this one does would make me at least have to consider the fact that maybe these machines really do need the amount of ram it is calling for...

    Aside from that, have you considered contacting the software vendor who wrote it in the first place, and discussing with them if there are any options?
    Matt Kleinwaks - MSMVP MSDN Forums Moderator - www.zerosandtheone.com
    Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:02 PM
  • lol,
    you know it's funny this always happens in news groups and forums, people spend time telling you everything but what you are trying to figure out.  I guess it is easier to say simple answers like dont do it, or add more ram, etc...  I don't need a mother or someone to spend time telling me stuff that is obvious.  I do like the suggestion above about taking ram out of another pc using that then putting it back kind of a leap frog approach, only problem is I need this automated.  So need another way.

    Listen like I said in my original post, sure one should put more ram in etc... but you also have to understand that you don't know the whole situation and when someone posts a question that is technical in nature it is better to give a technical answer like, it isn't technically possible because x,y,z... or you do it by running this x,y,z right before hand.  And if you dont have the technical know how to offer something up then just don't post.

    ok, now let's try this again.

    Take the software install out of the question.

    Now try to solve this challenge, 'how to make it seem like you have more ram in a pc then you do'.

    Think of it as simple an exercise.

    Wmi? Or is it possible to grab some hard drive space and make it act like ram for a second?  I know I've seen programs out there that do this.

    Thanks,
    Terry

    PS - before people get all upset too, I do value that people took the time to write anything, I just wish people would focus more on the questions and not the non helpful things. It gets frustrating when trying to figure something out.

    PSS - Also you have to remember just because a developer puts a minimum requirement in that doesn't mean that that really is the minimum many times developers are lazy and go with defaults or just guess and as a customer I should at least have the option of ignoring the minimum requirement if I so choose.  For example a switch or something that tells it to bypass the requirement checking like some vendors do.




    Hi Mat,

    I understand your attitude and feeling against the above suggestions and comments. Yeah, the comments do not fit the original questions' tech part very well. But actually the community members intent to help and share thier opinions on this. From another perspective, it is hard to say whether it should be encouraged to find a complicated hard technical solution to fake the amount of physical memory. The reason is the question itself is in a middle status. As mentioned before, if the objective to fake amount of ram is just to installing that software, I do not think it is wisdom to deceive the msiexec just for installing that application in a forced way. Because since the application producer has made 368M as the minimum Physical Memory limitation, it does not make sense to force it installed on 256M machine. The situation runing that application on 256M boxes may be not well tested, or tested and confirmed not to work by the producer.

    OK. Let's go back to the original question's technical part. Technically speaking, based on my research. The Windows Installer(msiexec) has many properties to specify the installing condition. A msi file's properties can be observed and modified by the tool Ocra. One of these properties is PhysicalMemory.(http://helpnet.acresso.com/robo/projects/installshield11helplib/ihelppropreference.htm) But unforunately, the PhysicalMemory is a hardware property set by the Installer at run time. So I do not think we can fake amount of installed ram from the msi file side. However, I still suggest you use the Orca to look into that msi file. Maybe we will get a chance to modify the hard code 368M limitation to 256M or less. See the following link about the Orca.
    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/255905

    If the Orca approach can work, it should be the easiest way to achieve your objective technically. If it cannot, I think we still have an alternative way. No matter how Windows Installer retrieves the PhysicalMemory of the target machine, through WMI or Windows API, eventually, it should call into the GlobalMemoryStatus or GlobalMemoryStatusEx to get the physical memory size. That is to say, if we get a chance to stop msiexec process's executing at the function kernel32.dll!GloablMemoryStatusEx, we will get a chance to modify the passed in-out parameter to change the retrieved physical memory size. This is definitely a debug tool's job. So we need to use Windbg to debug the msiexec.(Here we need to set a registry key to make Windbg attached to the msiexec automatically when msiexec starts. Please see more information in the following KB http://support.microsoft.com/kb/824344 in section of "Configure a service to start with the WinDbg debugger attached"). After the Windbg attached to the msiexec process. We can set breakpoint at the kernel32!GlobalMemoryStatusEx function using bp command. When the application stops at the breakpoint, we can modify the parameter value in-time using d command. See a common command list in the following link
    http://windbg.info/doc/1-common-cmds.html

    However, these topics are all a bit out of the VB scope.

    Hope this gives some clues and have a nice day, sir!



    Best regards,
    Ji Zhou
    Wednesday, July 01, 2009 7:35 AM

All replies

  •  if system require 384MB RAM and you want to deceive the the system with 265MB , how is that possible with script? . You wont get away with that. 
    kaymaf 
    I hope this helps, if that is what you want, just mark it as answer so that we can move on
    Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:35 AM
  • I fail to see that this has much to do with VB .NET that you try to cheat your system. The developers of the software had their reason why the made special requirements regarding RAM (and other), so, I am not sure if it would be wise to try to 'trick the system' especially if you want to use that software in a company as you say! That looks irresponsible to me!

    One way I can think of:
    Try to unpack the installer one way or another, then create your own setup.
    Listing SPEC's is not a review !!! :-)
    Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:37 AM
  • No budget?  Do it this way:  Take RAM out of one machine and add it to another.  Install your software.  Take the extra RAM out and move on to the next machine.  When finished installing software, replace all RAM to its original machine.  No code needed to do that.  Only problem I see is if the software REQUIRES 384mb, it may detect this and refuse to run, in which case you'll HAVE to install more RAM.


    Doug

    SEARCH ... then ask
    • Proposed as answer by --Steve-- Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:03 AM
    Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:13 AM
  • Does anyone know of a way to script falsifying the amount of RAM installed on a PC for an install. I have a program that needs to be installed on many systems that all have little RAM. The program requires during the setup that at least 384 MB of RAM be installed. Some of these systems only have 256 so the install fails. I know the easy answer is install more RAM. Ain't going to happen. Company has no budget. The install should be fine I think, but would like to test more. in order to do the testing to see if this would even work though I need to figure out how to have the OS tell the app it has more RAM than it does. I don't know this app but my first guess is the app queries WMI for amount of RAM?? If that's the case is there a way to set that WMI entry to something different until after the app is done? Or if someone knows another way that would be good too?

     

    Thanks, Terry


    Hi,

    I hope you are not working for the same company if they have NO BUDGET!!

    Memory is very cheap these days, take a look on AMAZON.COM or AMAZON.CO.UK

    Even I could spare US$30 to US$40 if I needed more memory for a computer
    or force myself to sell something to raise the cash.

    Besides even if you get it installed with 256Mb of memory the chances are
    the program won't run at all or it will run very slowly.


    Regards,

    John
    Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:20 AM
  • I second most of comments here! The producer of that software must have some reasons why the target machine needs 384M Ram as minimum. Cheating the application to tell it the system has more ram that it actually has is really not a good idea here. The application may crashes for lacking of real memory.


    Best regards,
    Ji Zhou
    Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:33 AM
  • I second most of comments here! The producer of that software must have some reasons why the target machine needs 384M Ram as minimum. Cheating the application to tell it the system has more ram that it actually has is really not a good idea here. The application may crashes for lacking of real memory.


    Best regards,
    Ji Zhou

    All prior comments/methods are good.  They ALL express the concern that the software might fail to run without the necessary amount of RAM, but only one provides a work-around solution for actually installing the software using the currently available hardware available.
    Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:13 AM
  • lol,
    you know it's funny this always happens in news groups and forums, people spend time telling you everything but what you are trying to figure out.  I guess it is easier to say simple answers like dont do it, or add more ram, etc...  I don't need a mother or someone to spend time telling me stuff that is obvious.  I do like the suggestion above about taking ram out of another pc using that then putting it back kind of a leap frog approach, only problem is I need this automated.  So need another way.

    Listen like I said in my original post, sure one should put more ram in etc... but you also have to understand that you don't know the whole situation and when someone posts a question that is technical in nature it is better to give a technical answer like, it isn't technically possible because x,y,z... or you do it by running this x,y,z right before hand.  And if you dont have the technical know how to offer something up then just don't post.

    ok, now let's try this again.

    Take the software install out of the question.

    Now try to solve this challenge, 'how to make it seem like you have more ram in a pc then you do'.

    Think of it as simple an exercise.

    Wmi? Or is it possible to grab some hard drive space and make it act like ram for a second?  I know I've seen programs out there that do this.

    Thanks,
    Terry

    PS - before people get all upset too, I do value that people took the time to write anything, I just wish people would focus more on the questions and not the non helpful things. It gets frustrating when trying to figure something out.

    PSS - Also you have to remember just because a developer puts a minimum requirement in that doesn't mean that that really is the minimum many times developers are lazy and go with defaults or just guess and as a customer I should at least have the option of ignoring the minimum requirement if I so choose.  For example a switch or something that tells it to bypass the requirement checking like some vendors do.



    Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:23 PM
  • I was thinking the exact same thing!

    Well, can you not ease the install's requirements? (I recall that InstallShield at least used to allow that at some point.)

    I usually don't try to hook into system code like that, but...its an interesting challenge, so I will look into it tonight, although it might be an area that is blocked off.
    Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:28 PM

  • Wmi? Or is it possible to grab some hard drive space and make it act like ram for a second?  I know I've seen programs out there that do this.



       Truth is bitter, if you can't accept the fact that is not possible to do with code. First of all, Hard drive is totally different from Memory (RAM), there is no way you can grab space from HD and put it in RAM. It doesn't make sense. You should use those programs out there to solve your problem. If you want unmanaged code to crash your system , then try google or bing.

    kaymaf 


    I hope this helps, if that is what you want, just mark it as answer so that we can move on
    Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:41 PM
  • I agree with you it can be tough when you ask a question and seem to get every answer but the one you want. However that sometimes will tell you that the answer that you want does not exist.

    When you get this many people telling you something can't be done, including MS employees, then its good to consider maybe there is not a way to fake the amount of ram a computer has at least not at a high level of something like a .NET language running on a virtual machine (.net framework) on top of Windows.

    You did ask 2 questions though, one about faking the amount of ram, and then a second about if not what other solutions can you use? I feel like you got both these answers, certainly more on the first one, the answer just happened to be no.

    As far as your second question about what can you do about it, at least a few people did mention some theoritical workarounds, like possibly increasing the ram just for the install, and then yanking the ram and bringing it to the next machine. Certainly not the desirable scenario, but it is valid enough. Of course we don't know this company setup, number of computers, etc... so I am sure it could be a pain to try that method. Or the other method proposed was try to look into what kind of installer they use, and if there is a way you can unpack, repack the installation files to bypass the requirement test.

    Usually software installers don't block you from installing based on the amt of ram, even if you don't meet the base requirements, so the fact that this one does would make me at least have to consider the fact that maybe these machines really do need the amount of ram it is calling for...

    Aside from that, have you considered contacting the software vendor who wrote it in the first place, and discussing with them if there are any options?
    Matt Kleinwaks - MSMVP MSDN Forums Moderator - www.zerosandtheone.com
    Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:02 PM
  • I disagree with the statement that it can't be done; however, I do not see any possible way to do it in VS200x. There are many solutions out there in the internet describing exactly this - I still find this irresponsible though. If you would work for my company, you would be the first I would fire! :-)

    Here a thread / forum to get you started:
    http://www.daniweb.com/forums/thread53883.html
    Listing SPEC's is not a review !!! :-)
    Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:09 PM
  • ...it makes perfect sense, and Windows does that very same thing all the time. That's what Virtual Memory is, but that won't help, because this is about installed physical RAM.

    It is more likely that it is possible to do that with code, and this is not the most unusual scenario I've ever seen in 25 years of working with Microsoft OSes and development systems. In DOS, you simply hooked the service that the program used to get the answer, and returned the answer that it wanted in the first place. The question here is where to hook, and is that place hookable.

    The PSS is a very valid point; memory requirements are usually arbitrary worst case numbers, and do not reflect actual use. We are talking about a difference of 128MB, which is not really much in the first place, and seriously...most programs use far less than they require. Halo is a great example of a program that wanted a ton of system RAM, then barely uses it.

    This is not a scenario where 'Its just not possible' is an acceptable answer to the OP, especially if you really don't know, but are actually saying, "I would not recommend it." (Which is fine, but how many times does that need to be said after the OP has already acknowledged it?)


    I have started creating more memory management imports from kernel32 in my work project. I started with GlobalMemoryStatusEx, which is a nifty function, btw.

        <StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)> _
        Public Structure MEMORYSTATUSEX
            Public dwLength As UInteger
            Public dwMemoryLoad As UInteger
            Public ullTotalPhys As UInt64
            Public ullAvailablePhys As UInt64
            Public ullTotalPageFile As UInt64
            Public ullAvailablePageFile As UInt64
            Public ullTotalVirtual As UInt64
            Public ullAvailableVirtual As UInt64
            Public ullAvailableExtendedVirtual As UInt64
        End Structure
    
        <DllImport("kernel32.dll", EntryPoint:="GlobalMemoryStatusEx", SetLastError:=True, _
                   CharSet:=CharSet.Auto, ExactSpelling:=True, _
                   CallingConvention:=CallingConvention.StdCall)> _
          Public Function GlobalMemoryStatusEx(ByRef lpBuffer As MEMORYSTATUSEX) as boolean
        End Sub
    

    • Edited by jinzai Wednesday, July 01, 2009 6:45 PM fix prototype (function vs sub)
    Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:15 PM
  • The program requires during the setup that at least 384 MB of RAM be installed. Some of these systems only have 256 so the install fails.


    I trying to understand how your question will help to install those programs as the install requieres at least 384Mb.



    Success
    Cor
    Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:11 AM
  • lol,
    you know it's funny this always happens in news groups and forums, people spend time telling you everything but what you are trying to figure out. 


    good thing you joined a forum to get answers and not have to search the internet for endless links to no answers..

    i respect what you mentioned, and the replies should be related to helping you fix this problem, not lead you back to googling again.

    if i knew a solution, i would gladly post it.
    hopefully, this is a solution for something..
    better replies?

    trujade.

    help out microsoft for helping you.. test run 7
    Wednesday, July 01, 2009 6:08 AM
  • ...it makes perfect sense, and Windows does that very same thing all the time. That's what Virtual Memory is, but that won't help, because this is about installed physical RAM.
    
    

    Be aware that this question looks like the joke software, which have given a lot of trouble in past.

    It seems not to harm, but it does often, I saw today here on television that yesterday somebody in Italy has shot his computer with a gun because he found it to slow.

    Success
    Cor
    Wednesday, July 01, 2009 6:25 AM
  • lol,
    you know it's funny this always happens in news groups and forums, people spend time telling you everything but what you are trying to figure out.  I guess it is easier to say simple answers like dont do it, or add more ram, etc...  I don't need a mother or someone to spend time telling me stuff that is obvious.  I do like the suggestion above about taking ram out of another pc using that then putting it back kind of a leap frog approach, only problem is I need this automated.  So need another way.

    Listen like I said in my original post, sure one should put more ram in etc... but you also have to understand that you don't know the whole situation and when someone posts a question that is technical in nature it is better to give a technical answer like, it isn't technically possible because x,y,z... or you do it by running this x,y,z right before hand.  And if you dont have the technical know how to offer something up then just don't post.

    ok, now let's try this again.

    Take the software install out of the question.

    Now try to solve this challenge, 'how to make it seem like you have more ram in a pc then you do'.

    Think of it as simple an exercise.

    Wmi? Or is it possible to grab some hard drive space and make it act like ram for a second?  I know I've seen programs out there that do this.

    Thanks,
    Terry

    PS - before people get all upset too, I do value that people took the time to write anything, I just wish people would focus more on the questions and not the non helpful things. It gets frustrating when trying to figure something out.

    PSS - Also you have to remember just because a developer puts a minimum requirement in that doesn't mean that that really is the minimum many times developers are lazy and go with defaults or just guess and as a customer I should at least have the option of ignoring the minimum requirement if I so choose.  For example a switch or something that tells it to bypass the requirement checking like some vendors do.




    Hi Mat,

    I understand your attitude and feeling against the above suggestions and comments. Yeah, the comments do not fit the original questions' tech part very well. But actually the community members intent to help and share thier opinions on this. From another perspective, it is hard to say whether it should be encouraged to find a complicated hard technical solution to fake the amount of physical memory. The reason is the question itself is in a middle status. As mentioned before, if the objective to fake amount of ram is just to installing that software, I do not think it is wisdom to deceive the msiexec just for installing that application in a forced way. Because since the application producer has made 368M as the minimum Physical Memory limitation, it does not make sense to force it installed on 256M machine. The situation runing that application on 256M boxes may be not well tested, or tested and confirmed not to work by the producer.

    OK. Let's go back to the original question's technical part. Technically speaking, based on my research. The Windows Installer(msiexec) has many properties to specify the installing condition. A msi file's properties can be observed and modified by the tool Ocra. One of these properties is PhysicalMemory.(http://helpnet.acresso.com/robo/projects/installshield11helplib/ihelppropreference.htm) But unforunately, the PhysicalMemory is a hardware property set by the Installer at run time. So I do not think we can fake amount of installed ram from the msi file side. However, I still suggest you use the Orca to look into that msi file. Maybe we will get a chance to modify the hard code 368M limitation to 256M or less. See the following link about the Orca.
    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/255905

    If the Orca approach can work, it should be the easiest way to achieve your objective technically. If it cannot, I think we still have an alternative way. No matter how Windows Installer retrieves the PhysicalMemory of the target machine, through WMI or Windows API, eventually, it should call into the GlobalMemoryStatus or GlobalMemoryStatusEx to get the physical memory size. That is to say, if we get a chance to stop msiexec process's executing at the function kernel32.dll!GloablMemoryStatusEx, we will get a chance to modify the passed in-out parameter to change the retrieved physical memory size. This is definitely a debug tool's job. So we need to use Windbg to debug the msiexec.(Here we need to set a registry key to make Windbg attached to the msiexec automatically when msiexec starts. Please see more information in the following KB http://support.microsoft.com/kb/824344 in section of "Configure a service to start with the WinDbg debugger attached"). After the Windbg attached to the msiexec process. We can set breakpoint at the kernel32!GlobalMemoryStatusEx function using bp command. When the application stops at the breakpoint, we can modify the parameter value in-time using d command. See a common command list in the following link
    http://windbg.info/doc/1-common-cmds.html

    However, these topics are all a bit out of the VB scope.

    Hope this gives some clues and have a nice day, sir!



    Best regards,
    Ji Zhou
    Wednesday, July 01, 2009 7:35 AM
  • Thanks everyone! for the most part this was a much better discussion.

    There were still a few who didn'tget it and choose to repeat what I myself had even already said, and simply answer that they would fire me, lol... but I guess you can't reach all the people all the time.

    Thanks again for all the answers, it looks like maybe this won't be possible and now I'll start pursueing other options.

    I still think it is possible myself but that's just my never say die side talking.

    Thanks,
    Terry
    Wednesday, July 01, 2009 1:44 PM
  • FYI, I'm going through and reporting all the answers as abuse (off topic) for people who did not actually answer the question. That's the only way to effect change when people can't understand that you either answer the question or don't respond.

    It's not even like they are just saying it isn't possible. Because it obviously is possible with a debugger. The software doesn't actually need memory to install, and very few programs actually need all the memory they think they do--they just don't want to make you swap out the rest of the OS.

    In fact, barring some very special circumstances, no installer should ever fail if you don't have enough memory. You might get a warning, but nearly all software will run with low memory--it just won't run well.

    Saturday, November 09, 2013 7:08 PM
  • No one told him it couldn't be done. Not a single person said that. They just told him not to do it. The point is, if you don't have an answer to the question, don't answer it.

    Saturday, November 09, 2013 7:15 PM
  • Everyone who knows even the slightest thing about computers knows this is wrong. Windows doesn't grant direct access to memory. It just uses virtual memory, and one aspect of virtual memory is that, if you run out of physical RAM, it starts using the hard drive.

    You aren't telling him a bitter truth. You are using this forum to make fun of someone who is trying to do something that you don't know how to do.

    If you do not know the answer, don't insult people by answering the question anyways.

    Saturday, November 09, 2013 7:18 PM
  • Everyone who knows even the slightest thing about computers knows this is wrong. Windows doesn't grant direct access to memory. It just uses virtual memory, and one aspect of virtual memory is that, if you run out of physical RAM, it starts using the hard drive.

    You aren't telling him a bitter truth. You are using this forum to make fun of someone who is trying to do something that you don't know how to do.

    If you do not know the answer, don't insult people by answering the question anyways.

    First of all trlkly you've been a member of these forums since 2011 and only have 5 points. Which leads me to believe you are not necessarily an entity I want to garner information from as in all that time you replied to one post and somebody voted on you I guess. You've never provided an answer.

    Windows already allocates virtual memory regardless of the amount of RAM on the PC trlkly. That was not the question nor is it an answer because the OP (original poster) stated that he needed 384MB RAM on 256MB RAM machines. So apparently, unless the OP asked the question before attempting to install the app on a 256MB machine, you would assume the OP had already tried installing the app on a 256MB machine and it didn't work.

    Also I would imagine all those posters you are whining about insulting somebody know a lot more than you about computers. I know for a fact Cor Ligthert who was one of the posters on this thread knows so much more than you that you will never in your wildest dreams come within 1/100th of his knowledge. And that's no insult. It's just a fact since he's probably written more machine language in his lifetime than you have Visual Basic code in your lifetime. So he knows way more about memory allocation than you could dream about.

    Also the idea that you could tell something it has more memory than it does would cause it to attempt to write to non-existant memory space. Where would that get you? That's like moving your cars gas tank needle to full while it has one gallon left and expecting it to be able to drive as far as a full tank goes.

    I didn't notice any insults on here really. I mean if you are actually so limited in your knowledge of how something works and don't do your homework before asking a question you pretty much deserve what you get if the question is as lacking in understanding of computers as that posted by the OP. I would have been embarassed to suggest such a thing. As it shows the lack of knowledge and ability for someone who is supposed to be computer savvy as well as a programmer.

    And now you're responding to a thread, suggesting reporting abuse, that hasn't been added to since 2009. That pretty much shows why you only have 5 points in 2 years.


    Please BEWARE that I have NO EXPERIENCE and NO EXPERTISE and probably onset of DEMENTIA which may affect my answers! Also, I've been told by an expert, that when you post an image it clutters up the thread and mysteriously, over time, the link to the image will somehow become "unstable" or something to that effect. :) I can only surmise that is due to Global Warming of the threads.


    Saturday, November 09, 2013 9:15 PM
  • FYI, I'm going through and reporting all the answers as abuse (off topic) for people who did not actually answer the question. That's the only way to effect change when people can't understand that you either answer the question or don't respond.

    ...

    While you are certainly entitled to express your opinion, you cannot flag a reply as abuse simply because you disagree with the content if that content is on topic to the thread and no harm was intended with the wording.

    The only real abuse I see here is the this quoted post which is indeed a necro post and could be interpreted as an attempt to reignite a flame war.

    You don't have to have a definitive answer before you contribute to a thread; discussion is often part of the answer-discovery process.


    Reed Kimble - "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"

    Saturday, November 09, 2013 10:33 PM
  • this thread was started in 2009. Someone random person who was never part of the original thread feels that 4 years later they need to report abuse and flag responses here?

    I was one of the original people on this thread. There is nothing wrong with it, and the person who decided to bring this thread back to the surface did nothing at all to actual try to provide any answer.

    I am locking this thread.


    Matt Kleinwaks - MSMVP MSDN Forums Moderator - www.zerosandtheone.com

    Wednesday, November 13, 2013 8:29 PM