topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

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

Login with username, password and session length
  • Thursday April 25, 2024, 12:28 am
  • Proudly celebrating 15+ 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

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Dr. Bob [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: [1]
1
ProcessTamer / Re: Unreported bug in Process Tamer (v2.11.01)?
« on: April 20, 2010, 11:06 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!!!!

2
ProcessTamer / Re: Unreported bug in Process Tamer (v2.11.01)?
« on: April 20, 2010, 05:55 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.

3
ProcessTamer / Re: Unreported bug in Process Tamer (v2.11.01)?
« on: April 20, 2010, 04:46 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.

4
ProcessTamer / Re: Unreported bug in Process Tamer (v2.11.01)?
« on: April 19, 2010, 02:46 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.

5
ProcessTamer / Unreported bug in Process Tamer (v2.11.01)?
« on: April 19, 2010, 02:14 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.

Pages: [1]