Windows event log viewer



  • I already hated the newer event log viewer in Windows 7 (vista?), it's a bloated sack that drives me crazy every time I need to use it. Today I finally got pissed off because it takes all day to load up 20k events so I decided to edit the max log size so it would only take half a day. The default is 20MB so I try setting the System Log to 1024KB and it gives me an error that the minimum size is 1028KB, so I click ok and apply that. With my newly acquired knowledge that the minimum is 1028KB, I attempt to set the Application Log to 1028KB and I get this error:

    The Maximum Log Size specified is not valid. It is too large, too small, or not a multiple of 64KB. The Maximum Log Size will be set to the following: 1028KB

    Confused, I look at my entry and it had changed it to 1024KB. I click OK to the error and it changes it to 1028KB. I thought maybe I had just typed in 1024 again on accident so I changed it to 2048, applied and then 1028 again and watched it switch it to 1024 on apply and then to 1028 on ok'ing the error.



  • Microsoft really could have done a better job with the Windows Event Logger.   It has so much potential to be a very useful tool for programs and people to use, but it is things like this that kill it.  On two of my previous programs we had our services write logs out to the event log so we could track how well they were doing and any issues that they were encountering, and it worked very well.  But things like hitting max log sizes, slow performance, and bugs really remove the desire for developers to utilize it.



  • @Anketam said:

    Microsoft really could have done a better job with the Windows Event Logger.

    That's an understatement. They turned something really basic, but usable, into something full of features-- that's virtually impossible to use. Microsoft really put the 'B' squad in charge of that thing.



  • The event viewer sucks shit off a dead donkey balls.

     



  • @alegr said:

    The event viewer sucks shit off a dead donkey balls.

     

     

    Now that is a pleasant mental picture indeed.

     



  • In this case, I fullheartedly agree with Blakeyrat.  Funny part is that they only rewrote a wrapper around the existing Windows Event Viewer.  Same thing only 5 extra mouse clicks to get to it.



  • @error_NoError said:

    The Maximum Log Size specified is not valid. It is too large, too small, or not a multiple of 64KB. The Maximum Log Size will be set to the following: 1028KB
    So, according to Microsoft Math(tm), 1028 is a multiple of 64?



  • @Anonymouse said:

    @error_NoError said:

    The Maximum Log Size specified is not valid. It is too large, too small, or not a multiple of 64KB. The Maximum Log Size will be set to the following: 1028KB
    So, according to Microsoft Math(tm), 1028 is a multiple of 64?

     

    Must be, you can't explain it away as a typo. On no keyboard I know of the 8 is next to the 4.

    Or perhaps I'm being a PD, after all something similar has happened before:

    http://bash.org/?5300

     



  • @erikal said:

    Must be, you can't explain it away as a typo. On no keyboard I know of the 8 is next to the 4.
    Is this close enough for you?:





  • Regardless of your feelings on Dvorak, I actually made a 😨 face when I saw that number row- I can't see how anyone thought that was a good idea.



  •  @PJH said:

    @erikal said:
    Must be, you can't explain it away as a typo. On no keyboard I know of the 8 is next to the 4.
    Is this close enough for you?:



     

    Yeah. I think while I continue to retain my sanity while visiting this forum, I have to get used to standing corrected. Although I still speak the truth: I didn't actually know about such a keyboard 🙂



  • @orange_robot said:

    I actually made a 😨 face when I saw that number row- I can't see how anyone thought that was a good idea.
    Judging from the wiki article linked to the pic, while not explicitly stated, it's supposedly as a result of Benford's Law.



  • @PJH said:

    Judging from the wiki article linked to the pic, while not explicitly stated, it's supposedly as a result of Benford's Law.
     

    Very cool.

    Ok, now everybody fire up Treesize or similar and run the numbers for file sizes on your hard drive.



  • @dhromed said:

    Ok, now everybody fire up Treesize or similar and run the numbers for file sizes on your hard drive.
    I would have thought running it against source code would give a better representation of what's required - I'd expect Benford's law to hold against file sizes (presuming you're treating the file size as a single number,) since the Law states that the distribution evens out as you go further right along the number to the units, but I'm not entirely convinced about actually typing, where the placement doesn't matter, and each occurrence of a number should be treated as 'the first number' for the purposes of deciding frequency of numbers.




    I'd expect 0 to happen a lot more often that Benford would suggest for example.



  • @PJH said:

    @orange_robot said:
    I actually made a 😨 face when I saw that number row- I can't see how anyone thought that was a good idea.
    Judging from the wiki article linked to the pic, while not explicitly stated, it's supposedly as a result of Benford's Law.

    That doesn't even make sense.. who cares about the first number? I have to type all of the numbers in, why does the first matter?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    That doesn't even make sense.. who cares about the first number? I have to type all of the numbers in, why does the first matter?

    The theory is that more numbers (in the set of all possible numbers) contain 1 than numbers that contain 8, so at least in theory you're typing 1 several times more often than you're typing 8, so 1 should be easier-to-hit than 8.

    Whether that theory applies in practice or not when it comes to keyboards, I have no idea. Why anybody interested in fast entry of numbers would use the bar at the top of the keyboard instead of the numeric keypad, I also have no idea.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    That doesn't even make sense.. who cares about the first number? I have to type all of the numbers in, why does the first matter?

    The theory is that more numbers (in the set of all possible numbers) contain 1 than numbers that contain 8, so at least in theory you're typing 1 several times more often than you're typing 8, so 1 should be easier-to-hit than 8.

    Whether that theory applies in practice or not when it comes to keyboards, I have no idea. Why anybody interested in fast entry of numbers would use the bar at the top of the keyboard instead of the numeric keypad, I also have no idea.

    Benford's Law applies to first digits, not all digits (there may be some other law concerning all digits, I dunno). Here's what this feature does:

    Boss: I need you to type in all the digits of pi!

    Lackey: I better re-arrange my keyboard so the 3 is easy to hit, because that's the first number!



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Benford's Law applies to first digits, not all digits (there may be some other law concerning all digits, I dunno). Here's what this feature does:

    Boss: I need you to type in all the digits of pi!

    Lackey: I better re-arrange my keyboard so the 3 is easy to hit, because that's the first number!

    I see what you're saying, but in the real world people aren't typing Pi, they're typing 3-, 4-, 5-digit numbers. Moving away from Benford's law would only make sense (I believe? Maybe my logic is wrong here...) if people are regularly typing numbers of 10+ digits. Which doesn't happen often.



  • @PJH said:

    @erikal said:
    Must be, you can't explain it away as a typo. On no keyboard I know of the 8 is next to the 4.
    Is this close enough for you?:



    You had to bring up Dvorak keyboards? Do you not have a numpad on your keyboard?



  • Now I know!

    Yes, as you get into the deep 10-digit number range, the usage of "1" hovers right around 10%, as you'd expect. For lower numbers, however, Benford's Law does apply.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.