[PL] 2004 Discussion: SYSTEM UTILITIES

  • Thread starter Thread starter Susan Bugher
  • Start date Start date
S

Susan Bugher

The Nominations page is here:

http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php

Nominated programs can be evaluated at this time. A valuable program may
been have been overlooked during the nomination period. Late nominations
and seconds are permitted during the discussion period if there is
support for the program.

This thread is for review and comments related to programs on the SYSTEM
UTILITIES page.

Programs that were nominated and seconded are listed below. The
subcategory is shown after the program name.

Rain (1 Cpu Cooler)
Memtest86 (1 RAM Tester)
MotherBoard Monitor (MBM) (2 Motherboard Monitor)
Another Task Manager (ATM) (2 Process Monitor)
Filemon (2 Process Monitor)
PRCView (2 Process Monitor)
Process Explorer (2 Process Monitor)
WinPatrol (2 Process Monitor)
MemLoad (2 Process Monitor: RAM)
RAMpage (2 Process Monitor: RAM)
RegMon (2 Process Monitor: Registry)
Quick Resource (2 Process Monitor: Resources)
Start-Up Monitor (2 Process Monitor: Start-Up)
EasyCleaner (3 Cleaner)
Empty Temp Folders (3 Cleaner)
IEradicator (3 Cleaner)
jv16 Powertools (3 Cleaner)
OleClean (3 Cleaner)
RegCleaner (3 Cleaner)
Spider (3 Cleaner)
RegEditX (3 Registry Editor)
Registrar Lite (3 Registry Editor)
RegMagik (3 Registry Editor)
RegSeeker (3 Registry Editor)
Add/Remove Pro (4 Install-Uninstall Tool)
RegShot (4 Install-Uninstall Tool)
Total Uninstall (4 Install-Uninstall Tool)
Cacheman (4 RAM Manager)
Startup Control Panel (4 Start-Up Tool)
Emergency Recovery Utility NT (ERUNT) (5 Backup)
DLL Archive (5 Backup DLLs)
WinDriversBackup Personal Edition (5 Backup Drivers)
BASK (5 Backup Files)
Cobian Backup (5 Backup Files)
Karen's Replicator (5 Backup Files)
My Own Backup (MOB) (5 Backup Files)
PolderBackup (5 Backup Files)
XXCopy (5 Backup Files)
XOSL (5 Boot Manager)
Ranish Partition Manager (5 Boot Manager; Partitioner)
Burn to the Brim (5 CD Tool)
Burnatonce (5 CD Tool)
DAEMON Tools (5 CD Tool)
SuperFormat (5 Format Diskettes)
Savepart (5 Partition Tool)
Debian (6 Operating System)
FreeBSD (6 Operating System)
Cygwin (6 Os: Unix For Windows)



Susan
--
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org
PL2003: http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm
PL2004 Review: http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php
alt.comp.freeware FAQ (short) - maintained by John F.
http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
 
I nominate "enditall2" It's a little program that can automatically close
or kill whichever processes you choose. This is great for CD burning and
program installation. It will also disable screen savers and power
management settings!

Many software manufacturers urge users in no uncertain terms to close all
running programs (and this includes applications that run hidden in the
background) prior to running their program's setup routine, and many users
make it a habit to close all programs prior to running disk utilities such
as ScanDisk and Disk Defragmenter.

For users running a number of third-party software applications the process
of pressing CTRL+ALT+DEL and Ending Task on each individual program (10, 15,
even in some cases 20 or more!) one by one can be a tedious process.
EndItAll 2, a small freeware utility authored by Neil J. Rubenking (a
Contributing Technical Editor for Ziff-Davis' PC Magazine) makes closing all
running applications a quick and easy process.

EndItAll 2 lets you easily terminate in one shot all non-essential programs
and processes for the purposes of:
installing new software
uninstalling software
running utilities such as ScanDisk and Disk Defragmenter
running demanding and/or finicky games
writing to CD-Rs that need a big buffer
The EndItAll 2 main window displays a list of running programs just as the
CTRL+ALT+DEL "Close Programs" dialog does, as well as a few processes which
don't even appear in Microsoft's C+A+D list. One can opt to handle various
programs and tasks differently by either protecting them altogether or
specifing whether or not they should be "killed" if they cannot be "closed"
(exited in a conventional manner with a prompt to save any unsaved data). By
default key processes such as KERNEL32 are designated as "protected" and
will not be terminated. While some initial experimentation is highly
recommended once the optimal settings are determined one can save them and
have them implemented automatically.

EndItAll 2 can be used under Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT4
and Windows 2000.

Installing EndItAll 2

The EndItAll2.zip file is a compressed archive, after downloading use WinZip
or a similar UNZIP utility to extract it's contents. Double-Click on the
SETUP.EXE file to install the program. A README.TXT file is included with
additional documentation. A shortcut to start EndItAll 2 will be added to
the Start Menu and options are provided during initial setup to add
shortcuts to the Desktop and/or QuickLaunch toolbars if desired.

Using EndItAll 2

Those familiar with the original EndItAll utility will find that while the
EndItAll 2 interface is still relatively simple and easy to use some of the
more advanced new features warrant a review of the included Help file.

The new bells and whistles in EndItAll 2 include:
New options (Allow close and Allow kill in addition to Protect) to further
control how various programs are handled
More complete identification of tasks including icons designating items as
"Application", "Hidden", "Explorer", or "Process"
The ability to block screen savers and power management features from
kicking in and causing ScanDisk/Defrag to restart
Command line support allowing for automatic operation via a batch file.

http://home.ptd.net/~don5408/toolbox/enditall/
 
Kyle said:
I nominate "enditall2" It's a little program that can automatically close
or kill whichever processes you choose. This is great for CD burning and
program installation. It will also disable screen savers and power
management settings!

http://home.ptd.net/~don5408/toolbox/enditall/
Click to expand...

<quote>
Additional information on EndItAll 2 can be found in this article at the
PC Magazine website.
</quote>

Shareware . . .


Susan
--
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org
PL2003: http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm
PL2004 Review: http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php
alt.comp.freeware FAQ (short) - maintained by John F.
http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
 
Hmmmm.... I saw nothing that defined it as shareware... It is referred to as
freeware at least once.
 
...
Hmmmm.... I saw nothing that defined it as shareware...
Click to expand...

Not on the website you referred to, but by reading the licence text, and the
conditions for legal download from PCMag, it is very clear...

"The PC Magazine Utility Library is now available by
subscription only. For just $19.97 (or $14.97 if you're
a current subscriber to PC Magazine's print or digital
edition), subscribers get full access for 12 months..."
It is referred to as freeware at least once.
Click to expand...

Don Schneider" who has created that page is probably not aware of the actual
licence terms...

// Bjorn A
 
AR RAM Disk - a Ram Disk driver/utility for NT/2k/XP
XMSDSK/EMSDSK - a Ram Disk driver/utility for Win9x/DOS.

Surprised to note these two Ram Disk utilities did not make it past
the nomination phase. AFAIK there are no other RAM DISK
drivers/utilities nominated for the PL.

If curios about these two, see my nomination post with descriptions
and links <or
<http://google.com/groups?&[email protected]>

....or to see what others have said about AR Ram Disk and/or XMSDISK,
one might also want to try a Google search - like (modify if needed);

search USENET groups for "AR Ram Disk":
<http://groups.google.com/groups?&q="AR+Ram+Disk"&num=100>
search USENET groups for xmsdsk OR xmsdisk:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?as_oq=xmsdsk xmsdisk&num=100>

search the WEB for "AR Ram Disk" AND review:
<http://google.com/search?&q="AR+Ram+Disk"+review&num=100>
search the WEB for review AND xmsdsk OR xmsdisk
<http://google.com/search?as_q=review&as_oq=xmsdsk+xmsdisk&num=100>

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen
 
Bjorn Simonsen said:
Surprised to note these two Ram Disk utilities did not make it past
the nomination phase. AFAIK there are no other RAM DISK
drivers/utilities nominated for the PL.
Click to expand...

Maybe most people don't use RAM disks anymore?
I've used this in the past, under DOS, but I see no good reason (for me) to
use them under Windows?
 
JanC said:
Maybe most people don't use RAM disks anymore?
Click to expand...

I've heard of a few people using it for things like browser cache, and er,
what else, was it their swap file?
I've used this in the past, under DOS, but I see no good reason (for me) to
use them under Windows?
Click to expand...

They're good for boot disks. However, I've the impression that everyone
nowadays cheats, and instead of doing the work themselves, just drops on
over to places like bootdisk.com?
 
Hmm, I must be getting old, since a consider a good ram disk driver
part of any decent utility collection. Granted, I do not use it very
often - but still - I can say the same for many of the nice utilities
currently on the Pricelessware list. Some utilities are great - when
you need them, no matter how often you need them.
I've heard of a few people using it for things like browser cache, and er,
what else, was it their swap file?
Click to expand...

True. Personally I have never tried using a ram disk to host my swap
file, well not since Win 3.1 anyway, but have used it for browser
cache.
They're good for boot disks. However, I've the impression that everyone
nowadays cheats, and instead of doing the work themselves, just drops on
over to places like bootdisk.com?
Click to expand...

Good for boot disks yes. I use the XMSDISK for that my self. How most
people use RAM disk today I think, if and when they use them. But you
are probably right about more people now downloading ready to go boot
disk (including AV disks) from the Internet rather than "roll their
own.

Other uses: I find a ram disk useful when I need to manipulate large
number of files. Instead of re-write hundreds of files to my HD, I
move the files to a RAM disk and edit them there, move them back to my
HD when done. Besides incredible speed, it helps avoid increasing
disk/file fragmentation - particularly if I do batch edits that
requires several re-writes of each file.

Another use I can think of, but have not tried my self, would be to
host a virtual cd on a Ram disk. Like for when you need to access a
virtual cd but do not want to (or can not) "waste" disk space for
hosting one - but you have plenty of physical RAM to spare.

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen
 
Bjorn Simonsen said:
Hmm, I must be getting old, since a consider a good ram disk driver
part of any decent utility collection.
Click to expand...

Bjorn, remember, not only are you getting old, but you are also a member
of the Geekus Extremus party. :)
[lots snipped/omitted]
Other uses: I find a ram disk useful when I need to manipulate large
number of files. Instead of re-write hundreds of files to my HD, I
move the files to a RAM disk and edit them there, move them back to my
HD when done. Besides incredible speed, it helps avoid increasing
disk/file fragmentation - particularly if I do batch edits that
requires several re-writes of each file.
Click to expand...

This usage is interesting. First thing comes to my mind is the fact that
in Windows groups, at least for W98, not sure beyond, there is recurrent
complaint about the explorer getting quickly exhausted and inadequate for
an intensive session of file moving and deleting.

(I did get my own sufferings, with regard to performance issues resulting
during mass deletions, lessened for the large part, after a change to my
system.ini VCACHE settings. Not that I can definitely claim yet that my
OS performance is now necessarily free from entering into the slowdown
that can occur during intense file activities, with deletions (not enough
activity of the type since my settings change).)

Beyond. It's going into your described performance enhancement, for a
project involving a lot of file manipulations. Using a RAM disk for that
purpose, that's a tip I've never been aware of. I do have projects like
that, on occasion, so am going to keep that strategy, in mind, for future
use.

I appreciate the information in your posts about the RAM disks, and have
saved them. Yet while that info is good to read, I don't know that it
could be enough for the RAM Disk utils to make PL wins, or not? If there
is almost nobody using such things, Just Cuz, then it could take a long
time to convince them to start....
 
I was about to say that I'm willing to second one of these, to get it
onto the table (and from there let votes will work out how they may).

However, am I not now too late, in thinking of it? The official nom +
second stage being over? If so, Bjorn, think of it this way. You'd
have a full 12mos to campaign and educate about this type of util.....
 
omega said:
I was about to say that I'm willing to second one of these, to get it
onto the table (and from there let votes will work out how they may).
Click to expand...
However, am I not now too late, in thinking of it? The official nom +
second stage being over? If so, Bjorn, think of it this way. You'd
have a full 12mos to campaign and educate about this type of util.....
Click to expand...

Well, you can second it - but I'd rather you didn't if you're not
planning to vote for it. Maybe after some more discussion it will gain a
supporter - s/he can second it for real. It's not too late if the
support is there . . . :)

If it is not chosen as Pricelessware this year, the description will
still be on the Pricelessware site - linked from the Nominations List.
Bjorn can start campaigning for PL2005 right away.

Susan
--
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org
PL2003: http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm
PL2004 Review: http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php
alt.comp.freeware FAQ (short) - maintained by John F.
http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
 
omega said:
This usage is interesting. First thing comes to my mind is the fact that
in Windows groups, at least for W98, not sure beyond, there is recurrent
complaint about the explorer getting quickly exhausted and inadequate for
an intensive session of file moving and deleting.

(I did get my own sufferings, with regard to performance issues resulting
during mass deletions, lessened for the large part, after a change to my
system.ini VCACHE settings.
Click to expand...

Could you describe what you did? I *mostly* solved a similar problem by
reducing the number of files and folders under Program Files. I'm thinking
Program Files is one of those "system" folders that have limits but that
you never hear about...My Documents being the main one you hear about.
Anyway, I'd be curious what changes you made to the VCACHE settings.
 
jason said:
Could you describe what you did? I *mostly* solved a similar problem by
reducing the number of files and folders under Program Files. I'm thinking
Program Files is one of those "system" folders that have limits but that
you never hear about...My Documents being the main one you hear about.
Click to expand...

I keep that "my documents" thing off within a general tmp directory, only
ever has max ~30 files, so that was never the cause of the problem for me.
Although yes, have heard about its limits being the area of cause and
solution, for a number of cases. Program Files, I don't happen to remember
anything about that. But there again, it would not have been possible in
my case for it to be a cause, as I keep fairly little in that system path.
Anyway, I'd be curious what changes you made to the VCACHE settings.
Click to expand...

I just roughed it in, kind of always have with VCACHE. I have 192mb RAM,
but didn't consult one of those "recommended formulas." Instead, I turned
up my max, in increments, until the performance problem seemed to be gone.
Settings I have currently:

[vcache]
MinFileCache=8192
MaxFileCache=65536
ChunkSize=512

Btw, something I haven't go around to checking is how smart Cacheman is
about writing the values (?)

It worked out to do it myself, since I did the adjusting during a period
when I was doing enough intensive file move & deletion activity to watch
for slowdown, and bump up values accordingly.
 
[add]
I have 192mb RAM,
Settings I have currently:

[vcache]
MinFileCache=8192
MaxFileCache=65536
ChunkSize=512
Click to expand...

Prior to that, with problem result:

MaxFileCache=24576
 
omega said:
I turned up my max, in increments, until the performance problem
seemed to be gone. Settings I have currently:

[vcache]
MinFileCache=8192
MaxFileCache=65536
ChunkSize=512
Click to expand...

Thanks omega. Was your problem just slow performance? Or did you also get
Explorer crashes?

Also...are there any downsides with messing with the vcache figure?
 
jason said:
[win98; 192mb RAM]
I turned up my max, in increments, until the performance problem
seemed to be gone. Settings I have currently:

[vcache]
MinFileCache=8192
MaxFileCache=65536
ChunkSize=512
Click to expand...

Thanks omega. Was your problem just slow performance? Or did you also get
Explorer crashes?
Click to expand...

It was just the slowdown problem. The slowdown would become so extreme,
where even asking the explorer to do something like fold out the startmenu
would take many minutes, that I'd be forced to reboot.

I'd had my initial more conservative settings, the 1/8 RAM or whatever, in
place for a year or two, suiting fine. The problem arose when the nature of
my computer activity changed. I was doing projects involving a great deal of
moving and deleting during a session, and the explorer couldn't handle that.
Not until I focused on telling it to cache more into RAM.

Have you ever noticed the difference, at a DOS prompt, when executing a
command that is file-intensive, with SmartDrv loaded, compared to without
SmartDrv loaded? For example, if you do an export+import of the registry
(or equivalent: scanreg /fix), without the DOS disk caching utility loaded,
you have to wait something like an hour, instead of ten minutes.

Vcache it like SmartDrv... It does the disk caching in Windows, both write-
behind (waits until the best time to write to disk), and read-ahead (keeps
recent things more readily accessible).

(The way Vcache is putting things in RAM, to keep things speedy...it's the
reason it's what came to my mind, when Bjorn talked about going a further
step, all the way to a RAM drive, for file-intensive activities.)
Also...are there any downsides with messing with the vcache figure?
Click to expand...

Yes. It's...what's the saying, borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, or
however that goes. Since I have only 192mb RAM, plus want as much as
suitably possible available for running a bunch of apps, I consider it
a sacrifice to have to allocate much to VCACHE. I just didn't have any
choice, since existing settings were a barrier to my being able to perform
my needed tasks.

This is the reason I only added in increments. I was seeking the smallest
max number possible. So I added 8192k units to that MaxFileCache line at
a time, over a period, until reaching the point where my file-intensive
activities were not leading to a slowdown.

My notebook doesn't support an upgrade beyond my 192mb RAM, and I had to
keep my limited amount in mind, when raising my settings.

Those who have a lot more RAM, they can go significantly higher. I don't
have any idea what is optimal in those scenarios, and of course it depends
as usual on what types of computer activities one is engaged in.

A quick glance at aumha.org, shows a dramatically higher number than my
65,536k.

"If you have more than 512 MB of RAM, a VCache maximum of 524,288 KB,
or a little less, is recommended."

They note at the same time, that above the 524,288k can "create serious
memory handling problems."

To tell you the truth, that high setting recommendation, even given that
it's for systems with 512mb+ installed RAM, it startles me a bit. I'd want
someone like PC Forrest to get in and explain his opinion there, in depth...

Eh, voila, I do find stored locally his web page on the subject. The way he
talks about the 512mb+ systems reads a little better. He doesn't _recommend_
that high setting, and instead focuses more on it being the max you want,
and as well, what will happen to you if you do not write the line into your
system.ini.

"If you have more than 512MB of RAM, allowing VCACHE to increase above
512MB can create memory-handling problems. A VCACHE maximum of less
than 524,288 KB is highly recommended.

"Without this limit, VCACHE will eventually reach its default maximum of
800MB, which effectively consumes all the system arena addresses leaving
no virtual memory for anything else."

Other than that, he does not give much specific talk on the subject. Most
of what he says just boils down to, "It depends on your type of computer
activity." That which I found very true on my system. Settings which were
fine for a long time became a serious problem as soon as the kinds of
activities I was doing changed.

What have we had here? Two different types of scenarios. First scenario,
it was my low-RAM system. Not much to spare. Had in place a setting that
is along the lines of the old, traditional formula: 1/8 RAM. Discovered
that it caused problems, and gently bumped up it, until I got to 65,536 kb,
which proved itself my best number.

Second scenario is those with 512mb+ RAM. There the cited authorities seem
to provide particularly two messages.

[1] Make sure to add in the vcache entry to your system.ini
(Windows will screw up if left on its own here)
[2] Do not exceed a max setting of 524,288k.

.. . .

Very brief mention on two other memory related things in the system.ini.
First, the new consensus: No max size on the .swp file (PagingFile=).
Second: If some retarded tweaker program added the line
"ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1" - then kill that. Maybe seek opinion about
it if you have 1GB+ RAM, but if not, get rid of it quick.

.. . .

For the record. I'm absolutely no authority whatsoever on this subject of
memory management. My comprehension is more where I can just manage to tread
water in the shallow-end of the pool. I only try to rough in working fixes
and settings, to keep the explorer's heart beating.

.. . .

I /still/ have not got around to experimenting in depth with Cacheman. One
thing I want to see is what values it proposes for my system, and whether
those align with my experience. When I finally get to that, I'll try to post
if any of the results seem impressive. I'd also be most interested if anyone
else has an opinion about Cacheman's settings recommendations.
 
jason said:
Or did you also get Explorer crashes?
Click to expand...
Jason, I remember you were suffering a mysterious pattern of explorer
crashes, earlier this year. Did you resolve it, or does the riddle
continue?
 
Susan Bugher said:
Well, you can second it - but I'd rather you didn't if you're not
planning to vote for it. Maybe after some more discussion it will gain a
supporter - s/he can second it for real. It's not too late if the
support is there . . . :)
Click to expand...

Well, I'm willing to vote for it too. I'll support Bjorn's candidate in
return for his supporting mine. ;) Is that corrupt? When I lived in
Sacramento, I had a few friends who were lobbyists, and one of them in
particular, after enough to drink, had great stories. My favorite was
a particular technique for bribing a politico. A discreet & private Friday
night poker party. A good lobbyist has learned the fine art of how to lose
large sums of money in such a poker game while making it look innocent.
So, anyway, my simple second and vote for a ram utility, no problem here,
clear conscience. :)
If it is not chosen as Pricelessware this year, the description will
still be on the Pricelessware site - linked from the Nominations List.
Bjorn can start campaigning for PL2005 right away.
Click to expand...

This would be a fine track. He could end by having us all more educated on
the subject than the whole rest of the internet populace combined.
 
Back
Top