Recent Posts

37576

DesktopCoral / Re: Usefullness

« Last post by mouser on April 17, 2005, 01:06 AM »

i assume you are talking about the options form not working right.
ill fix and upload tonight.

and ill try to fix the rest of my apps also.

37577

DesktopCoral / Re: Usefullness

« Last post by mouser on April 17, 2005, 01:03 AM »

make sure you set your opacity to 0 if you want to hide shortcuts in that area.

37578

DesktopCoral / Re: Usefullness

« Last post by mouser on April 17, 2005, 01:02 AM »

DAMN IT!!!!

i knew there was a reason i couldn't find it in the dictionary...


yes it should be Corral.

 
 

37579

ProcessTamer / Re: Anyone else with this issue?

« Last post by mouser on April 17, 2005, 12:11 AM »

ah that makes a lot of sense - i will fix.

37580

ProcessTamer / Re: perl.exe

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 09:29 PM »

thanks ben, ok im going to look into this tonight.. hopefully i'll be able to figure out what is going on.

there is one case i can think of where cpu use of PT could rise above normal, and that is if a ton of processes are being created and destroyed in some short period of time.  i wonder if its possible that this could be happening.. if you look in processes list do you see new processes being born and dying over and over again in rapid succession?

im guessing that that's not it, and that it instead is a bug relating to processes that PT does is not handling right.

i think you said that some instances of php show up in normal windows task manager but not in Process Tamer process list, is that right? i'm guessing that could be a clue.

37581

ProcessTamer / Re: perl.exe

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 08:21 PM »

PT2 should not go high cpu usage regardless of what php is doing, people reading pages, etc.
I'm going to look into this tonight after i finish today's review.  there is no excuse for ProcessTamer cpu usage to ever get as high as it was showing.  if you set rules for php/perl to IGNORE, do you still see the high cpu usage for ProcessTamerTray.exe?

37582

Mouser's Zone / Re: Any new ideas for small utilities?

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 05:56 PM »

scott, that is a strange idea indeed, but somehow im guessing the such a tool already exists.. probably in the form of spam-sending tools..

Ozzy1, the startup app does sound useful actually..  but sounds like it might be tricky to do properly.. maybe someone can tell us about any success they may have had in the past with apps that change the order or delay of startup programs..

37583

ProcessTamer / Re: perl.exe

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 03:58 PM »

ben,

what i'm more concerned about at the moment is the high cpu usage of ProcessTamerTray.exe in your screenshots(!).

te ProcessTamerConfigurator.exe is the gui configuration utility that only runs when you configuring it, and its not very efficient, so it can show some pretty high cpu when your using it and that doesn't matter.

but ProcessTamerTray.exe should *never* show such high cpu usage.  On my machine its pegged at 0% cpu except maybe for the brief instant when it tames something and reports it, in which case it might hit 1% briefly.

im thinking it might be trying to change the priority of php.exe or perl.exe and is constantly failing and retrying..
there is code in process tamer to mark a process as "unchangeable" when it fails to change its priority but it may not be working in this case.  can you do a little investigating to see if that ProcessTamerTray.exe cpu usage goes back to 0 if you set the explicit rule for perl and php to blank (ie remove it), and do a little experimenting to see what settings make your ProcessTamerTray.exe go above 0 cpu usage.

to reiterate:
if ProcessTamerTray.exe should stay steady at 0% except for brief instants when it tames an app.  anything sustained over 0% means something is wrong that i need to fix.  (ProcessTamerConfigurator.exe is something different and may use high cpu for periods of time).

37584

ProcessTamer / Re: perl.exe

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 03:45 PM »

that's surely it
now the only question is, could the problem be solved by either running PT2 as a system service or by forcing perl to run as a different user..

37585

ProcessTamer / Re: perl.exe

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 10:18 AM »

ill have to try my php - it sounds like process tamer is detecting that it can't get sufficient permission to alter php.exe and so isnt even listing it, but i'm definitely going to have to look into it.  i have php and perl installed on my winxp box so i'll take a look in the next day or two..

37586

ProcessTamer / Re: perl.exe

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 10:04 AM »

the process tamer tray list by default only shows processes using more than 1% of the cpu;
uncheck the hide 1% box to show all processes.

37587

Activation/License/Language Help / Re: About the Members Only Sections

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 08:28 AM »

a few people made donations to Url Snooper and Mircryption before there was a DonationCoder.com
if you are one of these people by all means email me with the info about your original donation and i will be delighted to make you super charter members here - absolutely no reason for you to donate again.

37588

ProcessTamer / Re: perl.exe

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 08:22 AM »

cheers ben, it's appreciated!

37589

Living Room / One of my favorite things to listen to

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 07:58 AM »

one of my favorite things to listen to.  redefines the word sublime.
"This American Life"

the entire archive can be listened to online (or downloaded with streambox vcr):

http://www.thislife....es/wbez_special.html

37590

Living Room / Re: Should I increase avatar size? Poll.

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 07:13 AM »

this question i think is settles.  avatars will stay as they are.

37591

ProcessTamer / Re: perl.exe

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 07:12 AM »

benny just email me and ill be happy to send you the link for ProcessTamer2.  it probably wont make a difference but there's no reason you shouldnt have the latest version.

people, the point of making the latest version available only to "members" (donators) is only to encourage people to donate.  if you know you are not going to donate, for whatever reason, then just email me and tell me so and ill send you the latest version.

37592

Living Room / Re: Graphix

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 06:16 AM »

hahaha - i hear ya.. yeah those ok and help icons on the buttons are pretty bad i must admit..

i will look for some better ones - i think i have some somewhere.

any you dont have to worry about posting such stuff in public, it won't upset me 

37593

DesktopCoral / Re: Suggestions

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 05:43 AM »

i'm afraid this is a behavior that comes with the approach - these programs think that this area is being used by another program and so they are avoiding it by default..

37594

UrlSnooper / New beta of Url Snooper 2.04.01 in Members Only section (adds case sensitivity)

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 05:41 AM »

See post in members only section for download of url snooper 2.04.01 which now respects casee sensitivity, as described in recent post by veblin.

https://www.donation.../index.php?topic=117

keeping with our current experiment, new betas will not be made available to general public for a short amount of time, as an attempt to reward members and encourage donators.

I also put the help file for urlsnooper online in keeping with the rest of the software.

37595

DesktopCoral / Re: Suggestions

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 05:31 AM »

#1) unfortunately i dont know any way to do this, but i can make it so you can double click on the tray to toggle it on and off, which would make it easier to use full screen when you want

#2) i agree with the switch, i will do that.

#3) i'll think about.. may i suggest one of the many utils that can hide system tray icons and collect them all to show in one menu - they are very useful for hiding tray icons you dont need.

37596

DesktopCoral / Re: Bugs?

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 05:14 AM »

ok i will try to fix all of these this weekend.

37597

DesktopCoral / Re: Usefullness

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 05:06 AM »

thanks ozzy!!!
i was hoping you'd make a post like this

samurize looks pretty slick.
i'm going to link to this post from the program page now

it might make it a bit easier if we photoshopped your screenshot and moved the samurize region to the left, so it wouldnt require scrolling of the screen to see it - i was confused at first till i realized there was more to scroll and see.

37598

UrlSnooper / Re: Case sensitive URL problem.

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 04:51 AM »

btw it's great to have you stop by veblin!!
we are not worthy!!!!!!!

37599

UrlSnooper / Re: Case sensitive URL problem.

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 04:50 AM »

ah....

i think this probably occurred when i added the option for links to use the "stripped" version of the arguments..
ok i will fix in the next couple of days and up a new version.

thx!

37600

General Software Discussion / Re: the definitive minimal amount of programs for the greatest security?

« Last post by mouser on April 16, 2005, 02:17 AM »

yes, you're point is well taken, the "best" setup is going to depend on the person and the situation.

and for some categories this is more true than others.  You could probably make two classes of users, newbies vs. powerusers, and be able to do a pretty good job of recommending the best newbie setup vs. poweruse setup.  something to keep in mind when we do reviews.

although this thread started out asking "what is the definitive minimal amount of programs for good security", and i think a reasonable answer to this is 2, a resident firewall and antivitus program.  and maybe an on-demand antispyware on top of that if you tend to get infected by such things.  its easy to see how people could get overwhelmed with all the different kinds of protection apps, and so i think its a reasonable question.  i do think process guard is overkill for most users, in that its hard enough to use and likely to confuse people who are not really savvy about such things.