For me, the double-sized print is very legible - a bit too
big maybe - and the quad-sized print is humungous, but there would probably be many people with severe visual impairment who could be glad to have that size and who might otherwise usually have to rely on the Windows Magnifier
In terms of providing a process/task listing though, ProcessLister
would seem to fall well behind a pack of some already-established and serious contenders - e.g., including:
- Windows TaskManager,
- SysInternals ProcessExplorer
- Wn Jia Liu's ProcessHacker
- the latter is the one I prefer to use as it best meets my peculiar ergonomic needs as well as my user requirements for a process/task manager.
And that is the point, really - i.e., what are one's user requirements?
From training in systems analysis, I would usually tag user business
requirements in a systematic manner, using the ABC prioritisation method, where:
- A = Mandatory (Urgent and Important)
- B = Highly desirable (Important, but NOT Urgent)
- C = Nice-to-have (Neither Important NOR Urgent)
(Anything outside of these 3 classes is purely imaginary and not related to an operational business need/requirement per se
I don't really have a defined set of "business/user requirements" for ProcessLister per se
, but if I did
, then it would match the user requirements that I might have and which had been met/exceeded by ProcessHacker
. Though I use the thing on a daily basis and it is an invaluable tool for monitoring and managing the operation of the Windows system, it is still just a utility - a useful tool - and I do not consider it worthwhile to sit down and define/document those requirements. I have found by trialling
the above tools that ProcessHacker
seems to be the most useful tool for my peculiar purposes
, but someone else might have different requirements/purposes, so it might not be so useful to those people - i.e., YMMV
(Your Mileage May Vary).
By the way, because PIM
(Personal Information Management) is
a very important matter for me in my personal and work life, I have defined and documented my requirements - e.g., in evaluating CHS (Clipboard Help and Spell) I applied the above method:
@mouser - by the way, there is still this: User Requirements for CHS
It could be used to save repetition by different/new CHS users. I put quite a bit of effort into that. Have not updated it in ages as no-one seemed interested. I think I left it as public and editable.
- which has apparently caused some readers to experience such traumatic mind-expansion and neural damage that it induces a temporary state of profound sleep from which the reader awakens with a complete loss of memory of ever having seen it in the first place. (This is the way Nature helps us to recover from traumatic experiences.)