Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • September 03, 2015, 04:29:45 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Author Topic: Unreported bug in Process Tamer (v2.11.01)?  (Read 5455 times)

Dr. Bob

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2009
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Unreported bug in Process Tamer (v2.11.01)?
« on: April 19, 2010, 02:14:58 PM »
I have noticed that PT sometimes ignores my "Ignore" settings and lowers priority anyway. I also tried "Force Normal" but with the same result. It doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Bug Tracker thread so I thought I'd just mention it.

I have seen this on two different WinXP Pro SP-2 machines.

mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,007
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Donate to Member
Re: Unreported bug in Process Tamer (v2.11.01)?
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2010, 02:18:20 PM »
is it always the same process that the program is lowering the priority of?
i'm trying to think if there is some reason it might not be matching against the application name and thus ignoring the ignore rule, so to speak.

Dr. Bob

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2009
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Unreported bug in Process Tamer (v2.11.01)?
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2010, 02:46:02 PM »
I am certain of one process called SEMON21.EXE which is part of Siemens' "Talk & Surf" software that remotely configures and logs my Gigaset ISDN Dect PBX. Look here and select product Gigaset 4175isdn.

I think I have seen it also with TOTALCMD.EXE from "Total Commander". See www.ghisler.com .

Probably a few more but I'm not certain which. I'll keep an eye on it and report more when they occur now that I have opened this thread.

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 5,432
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Unreported bug in Process Tamer (v2.11.01)?
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2010, 03:42:27 AM »
Not sure if this might help, but I thought I should mention it - because I had a similar "problem" with Process Tamer not longer after I started using it, some time ago.
It seemed to be not obeying the rules that I had set up. Then I discovered that PT seems to be sort of "case-sensitive" (or at least ASCII-value sensitive).
One of my pet hates is Acrobat's AcroTray. I had a rule in PT to kill it, but after Adobe Acrobat Reader was updated, AcroTray started up and PT seemed to ignore it. Then I realised that the currently-running version of AcroTray (as shown in Process Explorer) was in a different case to the rule I had previously set up.
The only way I could make sure it got killed was by defining the rule 3 times, thus: (I guess this this covered the common permutations of case in the name)
   A. AcroTray.exe
   B. Acrotray.exe
   C. acrotray.exe
The clue I had to case being somehow involved in this was in the PT alphabetic sort on process name in the PT Configuration GUI. For example, if you look at the screenshot attached, you will see how instance B is below A, and C is half-way down the list below that.

mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,007
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Donate to Member
Re: Unreported bug in Process Tamer (v2.11.01)?
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2010, 03:45:03 AM »
That's a very good tip Ian.

Dr. Bob

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2009
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Unreported bug in Process Tamer (v2.11.01)?
« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2010, 04:46:21 AM »
I had been considering a case sensitivity issue too. I got the impression that the process having problems was often/always(?) displayed in PT in upper case. I think I have also seen it with Firefox but was reluctant to report it before I have seen it again because it is used so much and I would have expected many people to have experienced it. I was also waiting for confirmation of the issue by other users.

Both SEMON21.EXE and FIREFOX.EXE are shown in PT in upper case. The file name on disk in both cases is in lower case. I was thinking that there might be a case sensitivity issue that somehow stems from an inconsistent/mixed use of Windows Long File Names and DOS 8.3 file names to identify processes. Or perhaps related to what is called "Internal File Name" when you right-click on a file and look at its properties. Provided that is again different from Windows LFN and DOS 8.3 names. I don't know how Windows and PT identify processes using any of these names.

mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,007
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Donate to Member
Re: Unreported bug in Process Tamer (v2.11.01)?
« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2010, 05:12:24 AM »
i think you are definitely onto the right track..

there are 2 ways to add exceptions to PT, one is by browsing for the exe in the main options tab, the other is by viewing the process list and choosing ignore.

have you tried both of these ways -- is the exe always named the same regardless of which way you do it?

if you look at the PT log when it says it lowered the process (or they tray balloon) -- does the case of the process name match the same as when you added the Ignore exception?

Dr. Bob

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2009
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Unreported bug in Process Tamer (v2.11.01)?
« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2010, 05:55:25 AM »
I have always added explicit rules when the process was displayed in the Processes list. And I haven't really paid attention to the case in the balloons. I don't have the logging feature active.

As a side note to IainB. I noticed your extensive use of Force Kill. I think you can reduce the need for that by preventing programmes from being run at Windows startup. Check this useful utility: http://www.mlin.net/StartupCPL.shtml

I also always immediately check the Preferences/Settings of any new programme I install to disable starting with Windows startup and automatic update checking etc. That should decrease the need for the Force Kill rules. I don't use it at all.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2010, 05:57:12 AM by Dr. Bob »

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 5,432
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Unreported bug in Process Tamer (v2.11.01)?
« Reply #8 on: April 20, 2010, 09:16:58 AM »
Dr. Bob: Thanks for the suggestion. I knew somebody would probably critique my configuration list, so you've not disappointed!    ;)
I already use Sysinternals' AutoRuns to govern my startups, and "Startup Control Panel" would do much the same job, I think.

What have we here? Oh no! Eyes hazing over with red...anger...must destroy...cannot stop...nooooooo!...not that!...not a rant!...
----- START OF RANT ------
I have every good reason for using Force Kill, and PT has proven to be a boon and a time-saver for me. Even after being unticked in startup, some proggies spawn themselves and reset themselves afresh as a startup, when I inadvertently install them or even just allow them to update themselves.
Rather than have to untick them time after time in AutoRuns, PT allows me to "fire and forget" - just kill 'em by brute force if they ever surface as a process. I can clean up the startup lists at my leisure, then.

For example:
(a) the persistent and annoyingly trojan-like AdobeCrap proggies when you update any Adobe product;
(b) the annoyingly trojan-like AskCrap proggies when you click "accept" by mistake when hurriedly installing some other proggy update that has the AskBar proggy concealed/bundled within it;
(c) the persistent and annoyingly trojan-like Micro$oft Messenger (which I rarely use, preferring to use Trillian for all my chat media), when a Windows Update runs.

CGuard, SeaPort, AdobeFlashCrap are all in the same category as the above.

I get PT to Force Kill the ImpulseCrap ones because they install with Fences (which I like a lot and always use). Unfortunately, Fences is set up so that it will not run unless Stardock Impulse is present and properly starts (presumably before it can issue an Error return). No amount of Autoruns tweaking or deleting of Stardock Impulse seems to alter this, so I let it start up and then PT kills it, and Fences then seems to load quite happily. I couldn't get this degree of control over Fences before I had PT, and was about to ditch Fences until I figured this trick out. (I have mentioned this in another thread elsewhere in the DC discussion forums.)

So you might now begin to see why I say that "...PT has proven to be a boon and a time-saver for me...".

I also always try to ensure that newly spawned instances of these annoying proggies are blocked by ZoneAlarm. They all try to "phone home" via some TCP/IP address or URL, but Zone Alarm won't let 'em without my say-so. I must have about 20 proggies blocked thusly in ZoneAlarm - including the above. That 20 includes, for example, about 9 AdobeCrap/FlashCrap proggies, and several Micro$oft ones (including Windows MediaPlayer, Windows Workflow Foundation, Microsoft Register Server).

All these petty annoyances can make my blood boil, but, thanks to PT (and ZoneAlarm), I can chillax bro' - well, most of the time anyway.
----- END OF RANT ------

superboyac

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,032
  • Is your software in my list?
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Unreported bug in Process Tamer (v2.11.01)?
« Reply #9 on: April 20, 2010, 09:28:39 AM »
Gotta love a good rant!  You go! :Thmbsup:

Dr. Bob

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2009
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Unreported bug in Process Tamer (v2.11.01)?
« Reply #10 on: April 20, 2010, 11:06:57 AM »
Heh heh...I get it. You use a double pronged approach to battle the many annoyances that far too many software designers create for us because they think their software is the most important piece of software on your system. Present company excluded of course. Process Tamer is well behaved software as it should be. I ditched Adobe Acrobat reader in favour of Foxit Reader a long time ago for example. I share your frustration. Don't get me started.

It's tragic that so many things that for instance Microsoft 'breaks' in Windows 7 have to be repaired by its users. Same with web design. Nowadays you need many add-ons like Grease Monkey and Stylish, NoScript and RefreshBlocker etc. to make the browsing experience more bearable. And if you're looking for a good rant? Do a Google for "grey text" web design. Aaaaaaaargh!!!!

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 5,432
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Unreported bug in Process Tamer (v2.11.01)?
« Reply #11 on: April 21, 2010, 06:41:27 AM »
@Dr. Bob: "Grey text"? Don't get me started. Take a look at Writing for maximum reader comprehension