ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE. Software > ProcessTamer

Process Tamer - New 2.14 Beta (win32 AND x64 version) - Feedback wanted

<< < (2/5) > >>

Thanks! Just a couple of questions, how does this version work with 32bit games? I play some on a 64build Windows 10 system, they don't show up on the process list (unless I uncheck 'Hide 1% Normal CPU).
Is that working right? They always showed on the last version, which I assume was the 32bit version. Their usage was much higher than 1% too. I actually found that version to be doing more with them than this one and the games didn't lag as much with v.2.11.01 as they do using the 64build Process Tamer.
Can you explain why there are such differences and which one I should use for lag-free gaming?

This version should work identically for 32bit processes.
It sounds like they are not taking up as much of your cpu on the new machine  -- so there's nothing really for Process Tamer to do.. Which is a good thing :)
If there are OTHER processes on the pc that are using up lots of cpu, it's THOSE processes that you might want to lower the priority for.

You could also try enabling the function "Boost Foreground Process to High Priority" to boost the speed of any game that you are playing.. Though that's a bit of an extreme action to take.

Ah yes, that makes sense. Yes, this machine is much more better than my last build - I'm still playing some of my old 32bit games on it, I don't want to give them up :)
Okay, so I'll try and lower the priority of some of the listed process (that Firefox is a monster!)
Thank you!

Not sure why, but this latest version of ProcessTamer doesn't seem to work fully.
ProcessTamerConfigurator.exe is v2.13.1.0
ProcessTamerTray.exe is v2.0.10.1

ProcessHacker shows the PT process as running OK, and its icon sits in the Systray, but it can't seem to come up with the About or Configure panels.

I shall investigate to see if I have some settings or something somehow left over from the previous version and which might possibly be messing it up.
I shall also check whether I have all the latest Windows OS updates.

PC is an HP Pavilion-15 laptop with an Intel i7 CPU, running Win10-64 PRO.

UPDATE: 2017-03-26 1449hrs
I made these changes, which seemed to fix it:

* Set PORTABLE=TRUE in ConfigDir.ini file (may not be relevant for all users).

* Set CONFIGDIR = . in ConfigDir.ini file (may not be relevant for all users).

* Restored old DonationCoder_processtamer_InstallInfo.dat file to application folder (C:\UTIL\Windows utilities\FindAndRunRobot\Plugins\ProcessTamer).

* Restored old DonationCoder_processtamer_Key.dat file to application folder (C:\UTIL\Windows utilities\FindAndRunRobot\Plugins\ProcessTamer).
I can confirm that PT seems to have no problem with either killing processes or adjusting the CPU priority of processes, with the several 32-bit and 64-bit apps that I have tried so far.

The only shortcoming seems to be that the PT Configure pane suffers - in common with most other @mouser apps -  from the excessively minuscule and apparently 1-pixel thick character font, making it difficult to read without magnification or specs of some sort (for those with imperfect vision).

Whilst I have not given PT an exhaustive test, I have given it a pretty good look-over, and this is me reporting back with my experiences and a sort of "Mini-Review" regarding ProcessTamer v2.13.01 (per "About"), comprising:

* ProcessTamerConfigurator.exe (is v2.13.1.0)
* ProcessTamerTray.exe (is v2.0.10.1)
OS is Windows 10-64 Pro: Build 14393.rs1 release inmarket.170303-1614
NB: This is a relatively cursory summary, so my apologies in advance for any mistakes I may have made or important points overlooked (let me know and I can correct them).

I had previously more or less given up on earlier versions of PT that I had trialled because, though they worked to some extent, they simply didn't always work too well. That is, PT didn't always do what it was supposed to do. This made them "unreliable" for my purposes, so I would generally prefer not to use them until they were improved.
However, this latest 64-bit incarnation of PT seems to work beautifully.    :Thmbsup:

By that, I mean really well:    :Thmbsup: :Thmbsup: :Thmbsup: :Thmbsup: :Thmbsup:

* It works well for the purposes intended.
* It works just as well for 32-bit or 64-bit processes (so far, without fail).
* It happily deals with and kills persistently-recurring superfluous system overhead annoyances that may be forced on the users and that are not necessarily needed all the time, and which keep reinstating themselves - e.g., such as GoogleCrashHandler.exe, DropboxUpdate.exe, SkypeHost.exe
* It seems to do exactly what it should do (was designed to do) and as documented in the Help file.
* It is easy to use with the relatively intuitive GUI provided - which also seems rather well-designed for the purposes intended.
Especially nifty/useful features:

* CPU Measuerment Smoothing sliding scale.
* PT Toggle: Double-clicking the PT icon in the Systray is a toggle to enable/disable PT. This also seems to be the quickest way to immediately control the application and (say) stop it from killing stuff that you might not want it to do just yet, but for which you have not yet had time to change the Configure pane. The user has to be quick though, as PT may be even quicker!    :D
The latter point also indicates that a new option is probably required: Start-up PT in quiescent (Inactive) mode.

Would be useful to include:

* Start-up PT in quiescent (Inactive) mode - start-up option needed, as above.
* Restart specified processes at timed/periodic intervals - e.g., useful with misbehaving/unstable/runaway processes including, for example RuntimeBroker.exe, SynTPEnh.exe, SynTPHelper.exe.
* Configuration saves: (For some reason, I thought this functionality was included, but I couldn't find it.) The ability to save different PT configurations as named Configuration Files, so that the user can select a particular configuration that is specifically better-suited to whatever the user is wanting to do with the computer in that particular session - e.g., (say) clear out superfluous system overheads prior to gaming.

Needs improvement:
The only criticism I could make is as per my comment above:
The only shortcoming seems to be that the PT Configure pane suffers - in common with most other @mouser apps -  from the excessively minuscule and apparently 1-pixel thick character font, making it difficult to read without magnification or specs of some sort (for those with imperfect vision).
-IainB (March 25, 2017, 05:08 PM)
--- End quote ---
To put this into perspective: In the scheme of things, not having a more legible Configure pane is not a showstopper. The requirement for an ergonomically visually better GUI is, in terms of priority:

* probably Priority "C" (Nice-to-have) for most ordinary-sighted folk, and
* only becomes Priority "B" (Highly-desirable) for folk who need to wear reading glasses, and
* would probably only become Priority "A" (Mandatory) for people with much worse eyesight problems.

Bit of a digression:
The reasoning behind why I persist in my crusade pushing for visual and ergonomic improvement in computer GUI design:
* Having learned from the development in military/scientific applications, I have tended to focus on visual and ergonomic improvement as a mandatory requirement and design objective in the GUI of computer programs that I have been responsible for developing (either as a developer or as a project manager). Suitable visual and ergonomic design of these programs was usually specified in the requirements for the contracts for development, and was the subject of end-user acceptance-testing prior to production release and final payment of contract.

* The fact that my eyesight needs the help of reading glasses is compounded by my having a couple of physical eye problems, one of which is a form of Fuchs endothelial dystrophy (which may be genetic/inherited or may stem from damage after being exposed to high-UV sunlight and having severe snow-blindness in my teens). The effect is that the quality of my eyesight varies throughout the day and in differing kinds of ambient light.

* All this has made me acutely aware of the reasoning for the above objective - i.e., functional efficiency of use of computer programs can be seriously inhibited/impeded by poor visual and ergonomic design of the GUI. The designer needs to aim to meet the eyesight and physical requirements of all potential users of the GUI, in most typical working conditions/environments - e.g., the operator may be sat in a brightly-lit office, or in the dimly-lit inside of a military tank. Again, from experience, many/most developers would seem to be blissfully unaware of whatever the visual or other ergonomic requirements of the users might be, with the result that they may unwittingly inflict on the users a sometimes punishingly difficult/unpleasant ergonomic interface and leaving users with little or no option to ameliorate the severity of that interface to better match their peculiar requirements. A classic example of this could arguably be the widely-used MS Office 2016 product (which is otherwise an excellent product).


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version