|
301
|
DonationCoder.com Software / ProcessTamer / Re: Some test?
|
on: April 24, 2005, 04:40:51 PM
|
|
I installed ProcessGuard 3.150, enabled all its settings (except "Execution Protection"), and didn't see a problem. ProcessTamerTray.exe is always very well behaved for me. I am using ProcessTamer 2.00.15, however. And I tested this in a virtual environment that didn't have a whole lot running, so... It may not mean much.
|
|
|
|
|
303
|
DonationCoder.com Software / ProcessTamer / Re: Some test?
|
on: April 24, 2005, 04:16:06 PM
|
The b10 use 9,5s/h on my system... Assuming you mean 9.5 seconds per hour--which is ridiculously and anomalously-high for Process Tamer--I'll bet that it's ProcessGuard at fault. The ProcessGuard driver can intercept the actions of applications, with the result being that the other process (in this case, ProcessTamerTray.exe) is charged for the CPU time. I'll test it myself, if I can gather the stomach to install ProcessGuard again...
|
|
|
|
|
311
|
DonationCoder.com Software / Mouser's Zone / Re: Any new ideas for small utilities?
|
on: April 18, 2005, 08:21:36 PM
|
|
I guess my thinking was that if the goal was to make startup faster, this won't do it. It will make startup seem more "pleasant", and your system more responsive during it, but it won't make it faster. So, I thought the suggested utility would miss the target, hence my questioning it.
The Google utility idea--admittedly strange--would certainly work. The thing to question about it is its very necessity. Big difference.
|
|
|
|
|
313
|
DonationCoder.com Software / ProcessTamer / Re: Anyone else with this issue?
|
on: April 18, 2005, 11:03:04 AM
|
it's one of these bugs that makes me so grateful to have real beta testers here who are willing to help find these issues, and it is my pleasure to be able to fix them. Cool, because I'm really, really good at breaking stuff, as you've found!
|
|
|
|
|
315
|
News and Reviews / Backup Guide / Re: Image for Windows
|
on: April 17, 2005, 09:56:04 PM
|
Thanks! Looks fair to me. Regarding the forthrightness of TeraByte Unlimited... I agree. One thing that has really kept me as a customer has been the fact that they don't hide things or mislead... It's all on the table. I don't see enough of that among software vendors. The only thing I'd change is to correct the spelling of PHYLock (from "PHYSLock"). 
|
|
|
|
|
316
|
News and Reviews / Backup Guide / Re: Image for Windows
|
on: April 17, 2005, 09:07:26 PM
|
I can understand being disappointed when a certain feature isn't within the click of a couple buttons, but that's where perspective needs to kick in... From what I see in the TeraByte Unlimited newsgroups, a lot of Image for Windows users don't use PHYLock at all. (PHYLock is the special driver that allows in-Windows backups of the boot partition under WinNT/2K/XP/2K3.) PHYLock is a driver that runs in memory all the time, as is the case with any competing imaging software that offers the same feature. So, I think (and this is just my guess!) that TeraByte Unlimited doesn't automatically install PHYLock because: - Installing PHYLock requires a reboot, whereas installing just Image for Windows does not.
- If you aren't going to use a special function (i.e. imaging of the boot partition from within Windows), you don't want an unnecessary driver running all the time, even if it is totally problem-free (as PHYLock has been for me).
- If you do want PHYLock, it's free, and incredibly simple to install.
- If you ever decide that you don't want PHYLock anymore, you can easily remove it completely.
- With PHYLock being separate, customers can update it independently if the need ever arises (i.e. without downloading and installing the whole Image for Windows package).
Just a thought. 
|
|
|
|
|
319
|
News and Reviews / Backup Guide / Image for Windows
|
on: April 17, 2005, 05:05:46 PM
|
After reading Mouser's comments on Image for Windows in the backup guide, I wanted to give some quick comments on it. I've been using Image for Windows for a long time now (along with all the other TeraByte Unlimited software), and it is the most-solid utility I've ever used. TeraByte Unlimited was the first to include full byte-for-byte image validation to their products... I'm not sure if the others have added that feature yet, but I personally consider it absolutely essential. (I was burned long ago while using another product that didn't have it.) I don't understand what is confusing about using Image for Windows. To me, it's extremely straightforward. The interface is absolutely no-nonsense. I can see how a couple of the options need explanation, but the PDF manual is quite good, and TeraByte Unlimited support (not to mention other users) is always quick to offer advice. I'm not here to slam other products, nor to say that Image for Windows is perfect (no software is). But I've seen TeraByte Unlimited respond to user issues and suggestions, and it won me over. Any and all substantiated problem reports are met with a positive response and solution, whether it's simply advice on product usage, or an actual update to the software. Anyone who tests the software, and sends an email to support, will see what I mean. I think that counts for a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
323
|
DonationCoder.com Software / Mouser's Zone / Re: Any new ideas for small utilities?
|
on: April 17, 2005, 08:54:52 AM
|
|
I'll answer my own question and say that: I guess it's a matter of how you want to use your system.
If you just want the startup process done and over with, you let it run the way it was designed to--let the disk and CPU get maxed out, because if your disk is only doing half the I/O it's capable of, and your CPU is only doing half the work that it's capable of, you're just slowing the startup process down if you take it easy on them.
But... If you want to begin using your system before waiting for everything to load, then it makes sense to stretch the startup process out over a longer period of time. I can see how that would be handy for some people.
|
|
|
|
|
325
|
DonationCoder.com Software / Mouser's Zone / Re: Any new ideas for small utilities?
|
on: April 17, 2005, 08:24:50 AM
|
|
Do you really need an application that let startup applications load depending on CPU load? It probably isn't going to make startup occur faster; if anything, it will take longer, because you're forcing it to be spread out over a longer period of time. Don't you just want it to be done with, so you can start using your system?
|
|
|
|
|